Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Murphy, 545 N.W.2d 909.
-
State of Minnesota v. Carl Lee Nodes
863 N.W.2d 77
Minn. 2015
-18 (Minn. 1996) (holding that a challenge to probationary-release conditions was premature because the defendant was not eligible for release for several years).
- State of Minnesota v. Ronald Paul Collum Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Paul Collum
Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(length of conduct, multiple victims, invasion of the victims’ homes, and concealment of crime); –75 (vulnerability of elderly victim and violation of victim’s trust), review denied (Minn. Apr.
- State of Minnesota v. Carl Antonio Wilks Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- State of Minnesota v. Carl Antonio Wilks Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Michael Jepson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Michael Jepson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- State v. Haukos 847 N.W.2d 270 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-
State v. Haukos
847 N.W.2d 270
Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Whether a statute has been properly construed is a question of law to be reviewed de novo.”
- State v. Greenman 825 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
-
State v. Greenman
825 N.W.2d 387
Minn. Ct. App. 2013
And reviewing courts “should give a reasonable and sensible construction to criminal statutes.”
- State v. Smith 825 N.W.2d 131 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
- State v. Smith 825 N.W.2d 131 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
- State v. Pegelow 809 N.W.2d 245 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
- State v. Pegelow 809 N.W.2d 245 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
- State v. Milliman 802 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
-
State v. Milliman
802 N.W.2d 776
Minn. Ct. App. 2011
*778 (Minn.2010); review denied (Minn. Sept.
- State v. Rausch 799 N.W.2d 19 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
- State v. Rausch 799 N.W.2d 19 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
- Dillon v. State 781 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
- Dillon v. State 781 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
- State v. Wenz 779 N.W.2d 878 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
-
State v. Wenz
779 N.W.2d 878
Minn. Ct. App. 2010
‘Whether a statute has been properly construed is a question of law subject to de novo review.”
- State v. Perez 779 N.W.2d 105 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
- State v. Perez 779 N.W.2d 105 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
- State v. Sopko 770 N.W.2d 543 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
- State v. Sopko 770 N.W.2d 543 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
- State v. Marinaro 768 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
- State v. Marinaro 768 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
- State v. Gradishar 765 N.W.2d 901 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
-
State v. Gradishar
765 N.W.2d 901
Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“Whether a statute has been properly construed is a question of law to be reviewed de novo by this court.”
- State v. Franks 765 N.W.2d 68 Minn. 2009
-
State v. Franks
765 N.W.2d 68
Minn. 2009
(explaining that the act of leaving part of a dead animal on a victim’s property conveyed a threat to injure, kill, or commit some future crime against the victim).
- State v. Basal 763 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
- State v. Basal 763 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
- State v. Holmes 758 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
- State v. Romine 757 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
- State v. Holmes 758 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
- State v. Romine 757 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
- State v. Campbell 756 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
-
State v. Campbell
756 N.W.2d 263
Minn. Ct. App. 2008
(rejecting a narrow interpretation of the terroristic threats statute that would produce absurd results).
- State v. Rucker 752 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
- State v. Rucker 752 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
- State v. Fero 747 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
- State v. Fero 747 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
- Rud v. Fabian 743 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
- Rud v. Fabian 743 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
- City of Granite Falls v. Soo Line Railroad 742 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
- City of Granite Falls v. Soo Line Railroad 742 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
- State v. Suhon 742 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 2007