Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Larson, 520 N.W.2d 456.

23 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Lanham argues that this court’s rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Devon Griffin Seivers Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Devon Griffin Seivers Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Under Minn. Stat. § 627.15, “[a] criminal action arising out of an incident of alleged child abuse may be prosecuted either in the county where the alleged abuse occurred or the county where the child is found.” “ [A] child may be ‘found’ and an action may be prosecuted in the county where the child resides.” 8 (Minn. App. 1994), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
The statute “does not contain an exclusive list of persons in a position of authority.” rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
aive nor forfeit appellate review found.” However, we note that the complaint indicates that SW resided in Anoka County with her mother at the time of the offense and that this court has held that “[f]or the purposes of the venue statute for criminal prosecution of child abuse, a child may be ‘found’ and an action may be prosecuted in the county where the child resides.” rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
1 (2008);11 (vacating eleven second-degree criminal- sexual-conduct convictions because they concerned the same acts as eleven first -degree criminal-sexual-conduct convictions); (vacating one of two different first-degree criminal -sexual-conduct convictions 10 Given this conclusion, we need not address the alternative basis for the district court’s decision: that the documents constitute the type of extrinsic evidence
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Larson , review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Rocky Lane Zahrowski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Rocky Lane Zahrowski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The statute “does not contain an exclusive list of persons in a position of authority.” review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Delbert Keith Sybrandt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Delbert Keith Sybrandt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“[M]atters not produced and received in evidence below may not be considered.” (quotation omitted)), review denied, (Minn. Oct.
State v. Rucker 752 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Rucker 752 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
This court has held that “position of authority” is “broadly defined” under this statute, review denied (Minn. May 16,1988), and that the statutory definition “does not contain an exclusive list of persons in a position of authority,” review denied (Minn. Oct.
State v. Fero 747 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Fero 747 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
-04, 506 (Minn.1987) (reinstating criminal-sexual-conduct conviction based in part on fact that appellant held a position of authority over the victim, a babysitter hired to watch his children); (affirming criminal-sexual-conduct convictions based in part on appellant’s position of authority over the victim, his niece), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State v. Mogler 719 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Mogler 719 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Schluter 653 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Schluter 653 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State v. Miranda 622 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Miranda 622 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
review denied (Minn. Oct.