Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Colvin, 645 N.W.2d 449.

137 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Richard William Reynolds, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Chad Allan Mikiska Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Melody June Fay Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Melody June Fay Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Lee Haywood 869 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Lee Haywood 869 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
If construction of a statute is uncertain, a statute may not be interpreted to create criminal offenses that the legislature did not contemplate.” (citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Scott Junker Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Scott Junker Minn. Ct. App. 2015
constitute a terroristic threat” because “the terroristic threats statute does not criminalize statements of transitory anger.” Junker further argues that “[w]hen a defendant argues that the charged statute does not prohibit his alleged conduct, the issue is one of statutory interpretation rather than sufficiency of the evidence, and the standard of review is de novo.” (determining, de novo, whether intent to violate an order for protection was sufficient to establish burglary, absent the commis
State of Minnesota v. Grady Dean Pederson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Grady Dean Pederson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Armando Jesus Pedraza Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Armando Jesus Pedraza Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that appellate courts have “no .
Oji Konata Markham v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Oji Konata Markham v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Welfare of: T. S. G. B., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Welfare of: T. S. G. B., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Whether a defendant’s conduct is prohibited by the statute he is charged under is an issue of statutory interpretation that this court reviews de novo.” ().
State of Minnesota v. Dayna Kristine Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dayna Kristine Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Brian-Will Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Brian-Will Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Watkins 840 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2013
State v. Watkins 840 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2013
State v. Stahosky 836 N.W.2d 769 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Stahosky 836 N.W.2d 769 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“A rule of strict construction applies to penal statutes, and all reasonable doubt concerning legislative intent should be resolved in favor of the defendant.”
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. Rick 821 N.W.2d 610 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Rick 821 N.W.2d 610 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Johnson v. State 820 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Johnson v. State 820 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Sanchez v. State 816 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2012
Sanchez v. State 816 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2012
State v. Gunderson 812 N.W.2d 156 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Gunderson 812 N.W.2d 156 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
rev’d, which indirectly addressed the elements of felony violation of an OFP, we stated that “[t]he state is required to prove the existence, and defendant’s awareness, of the order for protection, in addition to a violation of the order.” However, the supreme court, in reversing our Colvin decision, rejected th
Anderson v. State 806 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Anderson v. State 806 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Ferrier 792 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Ferrier 792 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Austin 788 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Austin 788 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Roby v. State 787 N.W.2d 186 Minn. 2010
Roby v. State 787 N.W.2d 186 Minn. 2010
State v. Marinaro 768 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Marinaro 768 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(noting that credibility determinations are province of district court in bench trial), review denied (Minn. Jan.
State v. PTACEK 766 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. PTACEK 766 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Basal 763 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Johnson 756 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Johnson 756 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
(holding that rule of strict construction does not require narrowest possible interpretation).
State v. Peck 756 N.W.2d 510 Minn. Ct. App. 2008