DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Cox, 343 N.W.2d 641.

163 citing documents.

  • State v. Hysell 449 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. VanWert 438 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • State v. VanWert 438 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • State v. Frank 416 N.W.2d 744 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Frank 416 N.W.2d 744 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Also, a court considering a durational departure must examine whether the defendant’s conduct was “significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.” (emphasis added).
  • State v. Horoshak 415 N.W.2d 404 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Horoshak 415 N.W.2d 404 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Williams 414 N.W.2d 781 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Williams 414 N.W.2d 781 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Durational departure has been justified where the conduct underlying the offense represents a greater than normal danger to the safety of other people, or where the defendant’s conduct is significantly more serious than conduct typically involved in the commission of the crime
  • State v. Strommen 411 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Strommen 411 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    The general issue before a sentencing court when it makes a decision to deviate from the presumptive sentence is whether the conduct of the defendant is “significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.”
  • State v. Felix 410 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Graham 410 N.W.2d 395 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Felix 410 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Graham 410 N.W.2d 395 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    An upward departure is justified when the defendant’s conduct is “significantly more * * * serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.”
  • State v. Gaines 408 N.W.2d 914 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Gaines 408 N.W.2d 914 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Ware v. State 406 N.W.2d 598 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Bingham 406 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Bingham 406 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    II In deciding whether to depart du-rationally from a presumptive sentence, a sentencing court must examine whether the defendant’s conduct was “significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.”
  • Ware v. State 406 N.W.2d 598 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Schroeder 401 N.W.2d 671 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Schroeder 401 N.W.2d 671 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Vance 392 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Vance 392 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Finn 391 N.W.2d 55 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Finn 391 N.W.2d 55 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Robinson 388 N.W.2d 43 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Robinson 388 N.W.2d 43 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    The general issue facing a sentencing court when making durational departure decisions is “whether the defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.” ().
  • State v. Blegen 387 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Blegen 387 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Bottomley 384 N.W.2d 241 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Bottomley 384 N.W.2d 241 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    “The general issue that faces a sentencing court in deciding whether to depart durationally is whether the defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.”
  • State v. Titworth 381 N.W.2d 510 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Titworth 381 N.W.2d 510 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    “The general issue that faces a sentencing court in deciding whether to depart dura-tionally is whether the defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.”
  • State v. Stauffacher 380 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Stauffacher 380 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Larson 379 N.W.2d 165 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Larson 379 N.W.2d 165 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Mattson 376 N.W.2d 413 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Mattson 376 N.W.2d 413 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Jackson 370 N.W.2d 72 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Jackson 370 N.W.2d 72 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    ANALYSIS “The general issue that faces a sentencing court in deciding whether to depart durationally is whether the defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.”
  • State v. O'BRIEN 364 N.W.2d 901 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. O'BRIEN 364 N.W.2d 901 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    In deciding whether to depart dura-tionally the sentencing court looks at whether “the defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.”
  • State v. Anderson 361 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Anderson 361 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Gist 358 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Gist 358 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 1984
    : “The general issue that faces a sentencing court in deciding whether to depart durationally is whether the defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.” Id.
  • State v. Booth 357 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 1984