Cited by

To convince us otherwise, to argue that Abdi used or intended to use the pocketknife as a means of staying inside the post office when he had been told to leave.

See, e.g., Trog, -31 (noting that defendant’s young age supported a departure); (upholding a departure where the district court cited a defendant’s immaturity and young age—19 years old—as a reason for departure).

12, 1984); WL 3792627, at *2 (Minn. App. Sept.

See Trog, -31 (noting that defendant’s young age supported a departure); (upholding a departure where the district court cited a defendant’s immaturity and young age—19 years old —as a reason for departure).

“‘Likely’ means ‘probable or reasonably expected’ in the context of the manner- of-use definition of a dangerous weapon.” d 871, 877 (Minn. 2024); d 105, 110 (Minn. 2024) (holding that broomstick was dangerous weapon when used to hit victim in the head causing injury) ; 10 (holding defendant brandished kitchen knife in manner jury could have found was used as dangerous weapon).

14, 1999); (stating that defendant brandished a kitchen knife in such a manner that jury could have found it was used as a dangerous weapon).

(concluding defendant brandished knife in a manner that the jury could have found that it was used as a dangerous weapon to cause fear in another of immediate bodily harm) ; see, (stating defendant pointed scissors and screwdriver

See generally State v. Patton , (concluding that the way defendant brandished a knife was sufficient to classify it as a dangerous weapon).

In State v. Patton, this court affirmed the district court’s downward departure in part because the court “cited [the de fendant’s] immaturity, at nineteen years of age, and exhibited a concern that incarceration was not appropriate for him.”

(stating that the defendant “brandished [a] knife in such a manner that the jury could have found it was used as a dangerous weapon”) (emphasis added).

(finding scissors to be a dangerous weapon because “although defendant did not use the scissors during the robbery he had them on his person and intended to use the m if their use became necessary”); (finding a knife dangerous when it was displayed within two feet of the victim).

(holding that the intent to use scissors as a weapon “if their use became necessary” was sufficient to sustain a conviction for aggravated robbery); (stating that the jury could have found the defendant used a knife as a dangerous weapon where he brandished it, but did not cause bodily harm).

16, 1988); d 572, 574 (Minn. App. 1987) (defendant brandished knife in a manner that the jury could have found that it was used as a dangerous weapon to cause fear in another of immediate bodily harm); (defendant brandished a knife “within striking distance” of his victim), revi

16, 1988); (affirming finding of intent where defendant brandished buck knife and testimony indicated he held it one or two feet from victim); (affirming intent to cause fear where defendant, standing several feet from victim, wielded and threatened

(concluding defendant brandished knife in a manner that the jury could have found that it was used as a dangerous weapon to cause fear in another of immediate bodily harm); see, (stating defendant pointed scissors and screwdriver at victi

See, (stating that the defendant “brandished [a] knife in such a manner that the jury could have found it was used as a dangerous weapon”) (emphasis added).

22, 1987) (executed sentence affirmed when defendant showed no remorse); (expression of remorse supported dispositional departure).