Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Orsello, 554 N.W.2d 70.

69 citing documents.

State v. Neely 604 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Neely 604 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(“ ‘[Ajmbiguity concerning the ambit of criminal statutes should be resolved in favor of lenity’ towards the defendant.”).
State v. Hage 595 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 1999
State v. Hage 595 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 1999
2319 ; -77 (Minn.1996); -62 (Minn.1979).
In Re the Welfare of A.A.E. 579 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
In Re the Welfare of A.A.E. 579 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
(noting Minnesota’s statutory definitions of criminal intent are borrowed from Model Penal Code); Paul H. Robinson & Jane A. Grail, Element Analysis in Defining Criminal Liability: The Model Penal Code and Beyond, 35 Stan.
State v. Collins 580 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Collins 580 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Mullen 577 N.W.2d 505 Minn. 1998
State v. Mullen 577 N.W.2d 505 Minn. 1998
As to the jury instructions on specific intent, retroactively but held that Orsello did not require proof of specific intent for subdivision 5.
State v. MacHholz 574 N.W.2d 415 Minn. 1998
State v. MacHholz 574 N.W.2d 415 Minn. 1998
State v. Loewen 565 N.W.2d 714 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Loewen 565 N.W.2d 714 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
1 Appellant challenges her conviction, claiming the district court: (1) (2) abused its discretion in imposing an aggravated sentence twice the presumptive sentence; and (3) exceeded its authority when it prohibited appellant from entering three Minnesota counties as a condition of probation.
State v. Behl 564 N.W.2d 560 Minn. 1997
State v. Bowen 560 N.W.2d 709 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Bowen 560 N.W.2d 709 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
At a minimum, he argues, this case must be remanded for a finding of specific intent
Englund v. MN CA Partners/MN Joint Ventures 555 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Englund v. MN CA Partners/MN Joint Ventures 555 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 1997