Cited by

Because these determinations are often fact-specific, we afford “a degree of flexibility to the particularity requirement.”

“[S]pecific dates need not be charged or proven in a sexual abuse case.” aff’d, see also Minn. Stat. § 609.343, subd.

Because these determinations are often fact specific, we afford “a degree of flexibility to the particularity requirement.”

State v. Becker , (holding that a defendant can be convicted of sexual abuse if the prosecution proves abuse occurred within a reasonable period; specific dates of abuse need not be proved); (“[S]pecific dates need not be charged or proven in a sexual abuse case.”), aff’d

The phrase “medical purpose implies some objective basis for believing sexual contact or penetration is justified.” (quotation marks omitted), aff’d

State v. Vazquez , see State v. Poole , aff’d

State v. Poole , , 32-33 (Minn. 1993) (describing Poole's offenses).

(affirming appe llate court’s decision reducing defendant’s six consecutive sente nces for criminal sexual conduct to three consecutive sentences); see also Norris , d at 71 (imposing two of five assault sentences consecutive with each other and with life imprisonment sentence for first-d

See, e.g. , State v. Becker , (concluding that defendant may be convicted of sexual abuse if prosecution proves that abuse occurred within reasonable period of time, and specific dates of abuse need not be proven); (“[S]pecific dates need not be charged or proven in a sexual abuse case.”), aff’d

We reached a (concluding that an authorization permitting the search of “[c]omplete patient files of all females with dates of birth between January 1,1965 and January 1, 1978 who saw Dr. Poole from January 1, 1987 to the present for any kind of family practice services” was sufficiently particular because “the nat

(finding no abuse of discretion where trial court excluded cumulative habit evidence).

“[S]pecific dates need not be charged or proven in a sexual abuse case.” aff’d

7 1984) (holding that a defendant may be convicted of sexual abuse if the prosecution proves that the abuse occurred within a reasonable period of time, and specific dates of abuse need not be proven); (stating that “specific dates need not be charged or proven in a sexual abuse case”), aff'd

See State v. *548 Becker, (holding that a defendant can be convicted of sexual abuse if the prosecution proves abuse occurred within a reasonable period of time; specific dates of abuse need not be proven); (providing “specific dates need not be charged or proven in a sexual abuse case”), aff'd

(‘We have recognized that there is a degree of flexibility to the particularity requirement.”); (“A warrant can only be as specific as the nature of the materials sought will allow.”).