Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Kisch, 346 N.W.2d 130.

26 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
28, 2022); – 49 (Minn. App. 1984) (affirming a finding of particular cruelty when the defendant slashed and stabbed the victim 23 times and left him to die in a ditch); d 130, 131, 133 (Minn. 1984) (affirming a limited upward durational departure based in part on the fact that the victim received four blows to the head).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See State v. 15 Edwards, 607 (Minn. 2009) (upholding upward departure where defendant fired seven times at or towards a group of nine people); (upholding upward departure because murder was “not just an unintentional killing resulting from a single blow but was one resulting from multiple brutal blows”); (upholding upward departure where victim was hit on the head eight times with two
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
24, 1987); 607 (Minn. 2009) (upholding upward departure where defendant fired seven times at or toward a group of nine people); -57, 460-61 (Minn. 1985) (upholding upward departure where victim was maced, her throat was cut ear-to-ear, and she was stabbed 17 times); (upholding upward departure because murder was “not just an unintentional killing resulting from a single blow but was one resulting from multiple brutal blows”); (upholding upward departure where victim was stabbed 23 times); State
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
But “where a defendant pleads guilty to a lesser offense, the [district] court ordinarily may not base an upward durational departure on evidence indicating that in fact the defendant could have been convicted of a greater offense.” -33 (Minn. 1984).
State of Minnesota v. Brock William Orwig Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brock William Orwig Minn. Ct. App. 2016
133 (Minn. 1984) (affirming particular-cruelty- based upward departure when defendant struck victim’s head at least four times with a two- by-four board); (upholding departure when the defendant “struck [the victim] repeatedly on the back of the head wit
State v. Weaver 796 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Weaver 796 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
juries This court has held that a defendant’s multiple attacks on a single victim with different deadly instruments is a valid departure reason, stating that “[t]he manner of use of a single deadly weapon, or two similar instruments, has been held sufficient to establish particular cruelty and to justify a double or less-than-double departure.” Dircks, d at 768 ; (upholding a departure *572 where the murder was “not just an unintentional killing resulting from a single blow but was one resulting
State v. Esler 553 N.W.2d 61 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Esler 553 N.W.2d 61 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
(limited durational sentencing departure upheld where juvenile was certified as an adult for second-degree felony murder).
State v. Simon 520 N.W.2d 393 Minn. 1994
State v. Simon 520 N.W.2d 393 Minn. 1994
Relevant decisions include: -33 (Minn.1984) (if defendant is convicted of lesser offense of unintentional felony murder, trial court cannot base departure on its belief that killing was intentional or premeditated and that defendant should have been convicted of the more serious offense); -45 (Minn.1984) (ord
State v. Douglas 501 N.W.2d 694 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Douglas 501 N.W.2d 694 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
(multiple blows to skull supported finding of particular cruelty in a felony murder case).
State v. Sanford 450 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Sanford 450 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Carter 424 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Carter 424 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
For example, a 2 x 4 board 2⅛⅛ feet long was used as a murder weapon.
State v. Mitjans 408 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1987
State v. Mitjans 408 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1987
In view of the jury’s verdict acquitting defendant of intentional murder, “we must assume that the killing was an unintentional killing in the course of an assault with a dangerous weapon and we must determine if it was somehow more serious than the ‘typical’ killing in the course of a felony.” -33 (Minn.1984).
State v. Mitjans 394 N.W.2d 221 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Mitjans 394 N.W.2d 221 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. O'BRIEN 369 N.W.2d 525 Minn. 1985
State v. O'BRIEN 369 N.W.2d 525 Minn. 1985
(after stating that “[a]n age difference of 5 years when juveniles are involved is a significant age difference,” we concluded that the youth of the victim could be considered in determining whether the defendant committed the offense in that case in a particularly serious way).
State v. Kisch 355 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Kisch 355 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
because of the vulnerability of the victim and the brutal nature of the killing.