DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

137 citing documents.

  • State v. Peck 756 N.W.2d 510 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Rucker 752 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Rucker 752 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    “A rule of strict construction applies to penal statutes,” so as to “guard against the creation of criminal offenses outside the contemplation of the legislature, under the guise of judicial construction.” (quotation omitted).
  • State v. Moen 752 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Moen 752 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • Munger v. State 749 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 2008
  • Munger v. State 749 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 2008
    “A statute must be construed according to its plain language.”
  • State v. Spence 742 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Spence 742 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    ANALYSIS I. “Construction of a criminal statute is a question of law subject to de novo review.”
  • State v. Adickes 741 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Adickes 741 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    (stating that when the “construction of a statute is uncertain, a statute may not be interpreted to create criminal offenses that the legislature did not contemplate”).
  • Munger v. State 737 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • Munger v. State 737 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    “[w]hile most burglary cases undoubtedly involve commission or an intent to commit a crime within the building, the statute makes no such geographic requirement” and there is “no policy reason to distinguish between unconsented-to entries that facilitate crimes outside versus inside a residence.” “Construction of a criminal statute is a question of law subject to de novo review.”
  • State v. Morin 736 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Kelley 734 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Morin 736 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Kelley 734 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Maurstad 733 N.W.2d 141 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Maurstad 733 N.W.2d 141 Minn. 2007
    See, (stating that when the language of a criminal statute is ambiguous, legislative intent controls).
  • State v. Perry 725 N.W.2d 761 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Perry 725 N.W.2d 761 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Hinton 702 N.W.2d 278 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Hinton 702 N.W.2d 278 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    14(b), (d)(1) (Supp.2001); (stating 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.”), rev’d on other grounds
  • State v. Tice 686 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Tice 686 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Johnson 679 N.W.2d 378 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Johnson 679 N.W.2d 378 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    ANALYSIS “Construction of a criminal statute is a question of law subject to de novo review.”
  • State v. Tennin 674 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Tennin 674 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Wickner 673 N.W.2d 859 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Wickner 673 N.W.2d 859 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Nelson 671 N.W.2d 586 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Nelson 671 N.W.2d 586 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    (holding that penal statutes are to be construed strictly so that all reasonable doubt concerning legislative intent is resolved in favor of the defendant).
  • State v. Koenig 666 N.W.2d 366 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Koenig 666 N.W.2d 366 Minn. 2003
  • Asfaha v. State 665 N.W.2d 523 Minn. 2003
  • Asfaha v. State 665 N.W.2d 523 Minn. 2003