Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Starnes, 396 N.W.2d 676.

28 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Lashun Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Lashun Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Eugene Francis Cuypers, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
But “[a] defendant is not entitled to reduction in his sentence merely because a co -defendant or accomplice has been convicted of a lesser offense or received a lesser sentence.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The admission of other-acts evidence “is particularly appropriate where the defendant has raised the defense of entrapment and the state seeks to establish that the defendant was predisposed to commit the offense.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
received a lesser sentence.”
State of Minnesota, (A15-1247), (A15-1255) v. Randall Samuel Stempfley, (A15-1247), (A15-1255). A15-1247 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota, (A15-1247), (A15-1255) v. Randall Samuel Stempfley, (A15-1247), (A15-1255). A15-1247 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
received a lesser sentence.” (emphasis added).
State of Minnesota v. William Heminchi Underhill Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. William Heminchi Underhill Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“We note that there is nothing more unequal than to treat unequal things equally.” -82 (Minn. App. 1986).
State of Minnesota v. Dalal Bayle Idd Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dalal Bayle Idd Minn. Ct. App. 2016
However, “[a] defendant is not entitled to a reduction in his sentence merely because a co-defendant or accomplice has been convicted of a lesser offense or received a lesser sentence.” d 676, 681 (Minn. App. 1986).
State of Minnesota v. Darren Clinton Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Darren Clinton Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Julian Sanchez-Sanchez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Julian Sanchez-Sanchez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“A defendant is not entitled to a reduction in his sentence merely because a co-defendant or accomplice has .
State v. Delk 781 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Delk 781 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Denison 607 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Denison 607 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(evidence of defendant’s prior marijuana possession and sale admissible as Spreigl evidence on the issue of entrapment).
State v. Evenson 554 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Evenson 554 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
(), review denied (Minn. Apr.
State v. Krebsbach 524 N.W.2d 17 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Krebsbach 524 N.W.2d 17 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
“A defendant is not entitled to a reduction in his sentence merely because a co-defendant or accomplice * * * received a lesser sentence.”
State v. Witucki 420 N.W.2d 217 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Witucki 420 N.W.2d 217 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
“An appellate court will not generally review the trial court’s exercise of its discretion in cases where the sentence imposed is within the presumptive range.” ().