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. Robinson, 480 N.W.2d 644.

30 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
    Id.; (explaining that defendants have the “right to let the jury authoritatively decide the” date on which an offense occurred).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
  • Longoria v. State 749 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • Longoria v. State 749 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    (holding that the issue of whether defendant’s conduct occurred before or after the effective date of a recently enacted repeat-offender statute was properly a question for the jury).
  • State v. Chauvin 723 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Chauvin 723 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 2006
  • State v. DeRosier 719 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2006
  • State v. DeRosier 719 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2006
    The *904 state relies on our pYe-Blakely case law that, although a defendant has the right to have the jury determine the date of his offense, a defendant must exercise that right by requesting a special interrogatory and waives the right by failing to do so, -13 (Minn.1993).
  • State v. Zulu 706 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Zulu 706 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    (holding defendant had right to jury determination whether offense occurred after effective date of sentencing statute).
  • 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 defendant is subject to amended criminal statute if his criminal acts occurred at least in part after effective date of statute).
  • State v. Cook 617 N.W.2d 417 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Cook 617 N.W.2d 417 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    1985 Minn. Laws ch. 286 (preamble); aff 'd as modified
  • State v. Schmitz 559 N.W.2d 701 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Schmitz 559 N.W.2d 701 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Terpstra 534 N.W.2d 554 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Terpstra 534 N.W.2d 554 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
    (suggesting that a juiy’s special interrogatory might be authoritative for determining whether defendant's conduct occurred before or after effective date of repeat offender statute.)
  • State v. Lunsford 507 N.W.2d 239 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Lunsford 507 N.W.2d 239 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Moorman 505 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Moorman 505 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Goldenstein 505 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Goldenstein 505 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    However, because the issue may recur on retrial, the court held that a “defendant ha[s] a right to let the jury authoritatively decide” whether the sexual abuse occurred before or after the effective date of the statute.
  • State v. Combs 504 N.W.2d 248 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Combs 504 N.W.2d 248 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    This court has held that the repeat sex offender statute imposing a 37-year mandatory sentence does not violate the federal constitutional prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishment.” aff'd as modified (not discussing constitutional challenge).
  • State v. Murray 495 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Murray 495 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Stewart 486 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Stewart 486 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 1992