DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Mattson, 376 N.W.2d 413.

93 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    A district court may grant a downward durational departure “if the defendant’s conduct is significantly less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the offense.”
  • State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
    (holding that conduct of grabbing and pinching the victim’s breast and causing pain was sufficient to prove fourth -degree criminal sexual contact by force) ; –15 (Minn. 1985) (determining that there was sufficient evidence of force 11 to support a conviction for fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct where the defendant suddenly reached through a car window and grabbed the victim’s breast over her clothing, causing pain and bruising).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    A district court may grant a downward durational departure “if the defendant’s conduct is significantly less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the offense.”
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    A district court may grant a downward durational departure “if the defendant’s conduct is significantly less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the offense.”
  • A18-1999 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    i. Downward Durational Departure Downward durational departures are jus tified when the offender’s conduct is “significantly less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the offense.” State v. Mattson , see also State v. Rund , (indicati ng that a downward durational departure is justified when offender’s conduct is less serious than typical).
  • Jose Angel Trevino, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    State v. Mattson , -15 (Minn. 1985)
  • State v. Roy 928 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 2019
  • State v. Roy 928 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 2019
    State v. Mattson , , 416 (Minn. 1985) ; see also State ex rel.
  • State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    .” see, (finding sufficient evidence of bodily harm based on a bruise); (concluding there was sufficient evidence to constitute bodily harm when victim experienced pain from being struck and shoved, despite lack of permanent or serious injury).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    See, e.g., State v. Mattson , -15 (Minn. 1985) ( concluding that victim sustained bodily harm because defendant’s contact caused bruising); (concluding that victim sustained bodily harm because of visible abrasion).
  • State of Minnesota v. Ely Ovis Emmanuel Ana El Sabahot Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Ely Ovis Emmanuel Ana El Sabahot Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    See, (concluding that victim sustained bodily harm from involuntary ingestion of drugs, which caused grogginess, inability to move, and disorientation); -15 (Minn. 1985) (concluding that victim sustained bodily harm because defendant’s contact caused bruising); State v. Johnson, 277 Minn. 230, 237, (concluding that victim sustained bodily harm because he felt pain when defendant struck him).
  • State of Minnesota v. Jacob Miles Solberg 882 N.W.2d 618 Minn. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Jacob Miles Solberg 882 N.W.2d 618 Minn. 2016
    A downward durational departure is justified only if the defendant’s conduct was “significantly less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the offense.”
  • State of Minnesota v. Thomas Raymond Struzyk 869 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Thomas Raymond Struzyk 869 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 2015
    -15 (Minn.1985) (finding sufficient evidence of bodily harm under Minn.Stat.
  • State of Minnesota v. Parnard Smith, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Shannon Marie Kiesner Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Shannon Marie Kiesner Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    “[A] downward durational departure is justified if the defendant’s conduct is significantly less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the offense.”
  • State of Minnesota v. Parnard Smith, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    A district court may grant a downward durational departure “if the defendant’s conduct is significantly less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the offense.”
  • State of Minnesota v. Curtis Wayne Regguinti Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Curtis Wayne Regguinti Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    A district court may grant a downward durational departure “if the defendant’s conduct is significantly less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the offense.”
  • State of Minnesota v. Antionee Jarmaine Mixon Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Antionee Jarmaine Mixon Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    Testimony establishing that a victim felt pain and had bruises is sufficient to prove “personal injury.” (holding that photographic evidence of a bruise established proof of a “personal injury”).
  • State v. Hahn 799 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • State v. Jarvis 665 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Jarvis 665 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 2003
    See State v. Johnson, 277 Minn. 230, 237 , (concluding that there was sufficient evidence to constitute “bodily harm” when the victim experienced pain from being struck); (finding sufficient evidence of physical injury based on a bruise); (concluding that sufficient evidence of personal injury existed when the victim felt considerable pain with sexual penetration and based on a laceration that resulted in bleeding).
  • State v. Jarvis 649 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Jarvis 649 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    31, 1986); (concluding soreness and bruise on left breast resulting from the contact was sufficient to establish personal injury for first-degree sexual assault); (finding victim’s bruised hand sufficient to establish personal injury).
  • State v. Dokken 487 N.W.2d 914 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Dokken 487 N.W.2d 914 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    (the trial court imposed a downward durational departure; the Court of Appeals found to have erred in increasing the sentence to the presumptive sentence duration).
  • State v. Ryan 399 N.W.2d 151 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Ryan 399 N.W.2d 151 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    is controlling and requires reversal.
  • State v. Staten 390 N.W.2d 914 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Staten 390 N.W.2d 914 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Doyle 386 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Doyle 386 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • In Re the Welfare of D.L.K. 381 N.W.2d 435 Minn. 1986
  • In Re the Welfare of D.L.K. 381 N.W.2d 435 Minn. 1986
    Furthermore, is controlling in this case as regards the meaning of the statutory language “uses force or coercion to accomplish sexual contact.” The conduct of the defendants in the two cases is virtually indistinguishable, though resulting bruises to the complainant in Matt-son led to a more serious charge.
  • State v. Willis 376 N.W.2d 427 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Willis 376 N.W.2d 427 Minn. 1985