Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Koenig, 666 N.W.2d 366.

110 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Criminalizing the solicitation of a child is necessary because “solicitation often leads to abuse, prostitution, and kidnapping, which are commonly associated with sexual conduct.” (citation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State v. Koenig , n.2 (Minn. 2003) (citing State v. Florence , ).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Ryan James Martens, Appellant Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Ryan James Martens, Appellant Minn. 2025
Minn. Stat. § 645.17(1).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Minn. Stat. § 645.17(1) (202 2); (stating same); State v. Greenman , (stating that “courts should give a reasonable and sensible construction to criminal statutes” (quotation omitted)).
Minn. 2021
State v. Koenig , (explaining that a probable cause hearing protects the defe ndant from being compelled to stand trial on unjust or improper charges).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Jesse James Adams. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Second, the county argues that subdivision 1(a) requires “clear and convinci ng evidence that a less restrictive treatment program is available that is consistent with the patient’s treatment needs and the requirements of public safety.” The goal of statutory interpretation is to “e ffectuate the intent of the legislature.” State v. Koenig
Whitney Hinrichs-Cady, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
intend absurd or unreasonable results.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The court explained the difficulty and challenges of pro se representation and the serious nature of the charges, but Logan signed 4 A Florence hearing is held “to determine whether there [is] sufficient probable cause to support the charges.”
State v. Gundy 915 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Gundy 915 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Koenig , , 373 (Minn. 2003) (citations omitted).
State v. Gayles 915 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Gayles 915 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
2010) (indicating that a charge will not be dismissed for lack of probable cause if there is a fact question for the jury's determination on every element of the charged offense); State v. Rud , , 579 (Minn. 1984) (indicating that a charge will not be dismissed if there is evidence that would justify denial of a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal); see State v. Koenig , , 376 (Minn. 2003) (Page, J., dissenting) ("[T]he state must establish probable cause for each element of the charged o
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Donquarius Davon Copeland, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
brings the charge against the prisoner within reasonable probability.” d 366, 372 (Minn. 2003) (quotation omitted).
State v. Larsen 901 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Larsen 901 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Eugene Lee Rushton v. State of Minnesota 889 N.W.2d 561 Minn. 2017
Eugene Lee Rushton v. State of Minnesota 889 N.W.2d 561 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Kim Marie Halvorson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Kim Marie Halvorson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(“[E]ven an order dismissing only one count of a multi-count complaint may have critical impact.”), rev’d on other grounds, (Minn. 4 II.
State of Minnesota v. Jessica Corinne Anich Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jessica Corinne Anich Minn. Ct. App. 2016
It has been said 1 A defendant may move to dismiss a complaint for lack of probable cause that the defendant committed the offense charged, and this type of hearing “has come to be called a Florence hearing based on the case of State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442, ” n.2 (Minn. 2003).
Mary Cocchiarella v. Donald Driggs 884 N.W.2d 621 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ronald David Olson 884 N.W.2d 906 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ronald David Olson 884 N.W.2d 906 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
We give statutory words and phrases “their plain and ordinary meaning.” see also Minn. Stat. § 645.08(1) (2014) (statutory phrases are construed according to their common and approved usage).
State of Minnesota v. Mark Robert Moser 884 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mark Robert Moser 884 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
4 The legislature wanted to protect vulnerable children, particularly runaways and truants, from these situations.
State of Minnesota v. Renee Anita Vasko Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Renee Anita Vasko Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Any “ambiguity concerning the ambit of criminal statutes should be resolved in favor of lenity.” Stewart, d at 496 (quotation omitted); see Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2014); d 366, 372-73 (Minn. 2003) (“Penal statutes are to be construed strictly so that all reasonable doubt concerning legislative intent is resolved in favor of the defendant.”).
Wayzata Nissan, LLC v. Nissan North America, Inc., Stephen J. McDaniels 875 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 2016
Wayzata Nissan, LLC v. Nissan North America, Inc., Stephen J. McDaniels 875 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 2016
accord Minn. Stat. § 645.17(1) (2014).
State of Minnesota v. Carl Raba Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Carl Raba Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rocky Lane Zahrowski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Rocky Lane Zahrowski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Broten 836 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Broten 836 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“The object of statutory interpretation is to effectuate the intent of the legislature.” (citing Minn.Stat.
State v. Gerard 832 N.W.2d 314 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Gerard 832 N.W.2d 314 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
The purpose of a probable-cause hearing is to “protect a defendant unjustly or improperly charged from being compelled to stand trial.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Garcia-Gutierrez 830 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Garcia-Gutierrez 830 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
(stating that when construing statutes, courts presume “that the legislature does not intend ...
State v. Ulrich 829 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2013