Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Latimer, 604 N.W.2d 103.

36 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Welfare of: S. A. A., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Minn. Stat. § 611A.04 (2024); see State v. Latimer
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
d 103, 105 (Minn. App. 1999).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
For these reasons, appellant’s , is misplaced.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Nelson, d at 347-48 (district court erred by considering losses that occurred outside the charging period); (district court erred in awarding restitution for losses stemming from murder, in which defendant took no part); State v. Esler , (district court erred in awarding restitution for shooting incident which took place several hours prior to the murder for wh
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. I. Q., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(affirming restitution compensating mother of minor victim for driv ing expenses incurred taking victim to an interview); (concluding that the district court abused its discre tion in awarding restitution for murder where offender convicted of accessory after the fact denied participating in the murder).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A victim’s “compensable loss must be ‘directly caused by the conduct for which the defendant was convicted.’” (); -18 (Minn. App. 2010) (reversing restitution award that “far exceed[ed] the loss attributable to the offense” of conviction).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(holding that a defendant who pleads guilty to being an accomplice after the fact to murder may only be required to pay restitution to the murder victim’s parents for the losses directly caused by her actions and may not be required to pay restitution for the losses resulting from the murder
State of Minnesota v. Emile Rey 890 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Emile Rey 890 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Mary Marie Garner Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mary Marie Garner Minn. Ct. App. 2016
We have interpreted the statute to “require that the claimed loss be ‘directly caused by the conduct for which the defendant was convicted.’” (), review granted (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Berry Alan Willis 883 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Berry Alan Willis 883 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
This court has interpreted the statute to require that the claimed loss be “directly caused by the conduct for which the defendant was convicted.” (quotation omitted); (holding that restitution is proper for “victim’s losses [that] are directly caused by appellant’s conduct for which he was convicted”).
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Roy Becker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Roy Becker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[A] compensable loss must be ‘directly caused by the conduct for which the defendant was convicted.’” Nelson, d at 347 ().
State of Minnesota v. Javier Rodriguez 863 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Javier Rodriguez 863 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“A crime victim has the right to receive restitution as part of the disposition of a criminal charge.” (quotation omitted); Minn. Stat. § 611A.04, subd.
State of Minnesota v. Darnell Steven Cox Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Darnell Steven Cox Minn. Ct. App. 2014
A loss entitling a victim to restitution must be “directly caused by the conduct for which the defendant was convicted.” 4 (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Donald Timothy Palardis Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Donald Timothy Palardis Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“A crime victim has the right to receive restitution as part of the disposition of a criminal charge.” (quotation 8 omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Will Alexander 855 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Will Alexander 855 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
A crime victim “has the right to receive restitution as part of the disposition of a criminal charge.” Minn. Stat. § 611A.04, subd.
State v. Miller 842 N.W.2d 474 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Miller 842 N.W.2d 474 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Maxwell 802 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Maxwell 802 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
directly caused by the conduct for which the defendant was convicted.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Nelson 796 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 2011
State v. Nelson 796 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 2011
However, a loss claimed as an item of restitution by a crime victim must have some factual relationship to the crime committed — a compensable loss must be “directly caused by the conduct for which the defendant was convicted.” (quotation omitted); (holding that restitution is proper for “victim’s losses [that] are directly caused by appellant’s conduct for which he was convicted”); see also Ramsay, d at 517 (reversing restitution award that “far exceeds th
Anderson v. State 794 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Anderson v. State 794 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Palubicki 727 N.W.2d 662 Minn. 2007
State v. Palubicki 727 N.W.2d 662 Minn. 2007