Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Gorman, 546 N.W.2d 5.

64 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Evan James Fasthorse Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Evan James Fasthorse Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“[A] ‘pattern of criminal conduct’ may be demonstrated by proof of criminal conduct similar, but not identical, in motive, purpose, results, participants, victims or other shared characteristics.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
B. Pattern of Criminal Conduct “[A] ‘pattern of criminal conduct’ may be demonstrated by proof of criminal conduct similar, but not identical, in motive, purpose, results, participants, victims or other shared characteristics.”
A21-1500 Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See, (concluding “that a pattern of criminal conduct [was] clearly established” when the defendant’s criminal history involved convictions for third-, fourth-, and fifth - degree assault and disorderly conduct and the current offense was for unintentional second- degree murder, even though a number of hi
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A “pattern of criminal conduct” is established upon “proof of criminal conduct similar, but not identical, in motive, purpose, results, participants, victi ms or other shared characteristics.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
22 felony that was committed as part of a pattern of criminal conduct.” A “‘pattern of criminal conduct’ may be demonstrated by proof of criminal conduct similar, but not identical, in motive, purpo se, results, participants, victims or other shared characteristics.”
State of Minnesota v. Earl Lionell Ward Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Earl Lionell Ward Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Elijah Mason Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Elijah Mason Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“A ‘pattern of criminal conduct’ is established upon ‘proof of criminal conduct similar, but not identical, in motive, purpose, results, participants, victims or other shared characteristics.’” 14 (), review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).
Candyce L. Brown v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Candyce L. Brown v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Marlow Shelton McDonald Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Marlow Shelton McDonald Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“‘[P]attern of criminal conduct’ may be demonstrated by reference to past felony or gross misdemeanor convictions or by proof, through clear and convincing evidence, of prior, uncharged acts of criminal conduct, where such acts are similar to the present offense in motive, purpose, results, participants, victims or other characteristics.”
State v. Weyaus 836 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Weyaus 836 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
(Minn.1978) (rejecting Jones’s argument that insufficient evidence justified finding that victim suffered great bodily harm when victim was found “unconscious and on the verge of shock,” “did not regain consciousness until the following day,” “remained hospitalized for a week,” about two weeks after the attack almost suffered a miscarriage, and at trial still felt numbness in her teeth)), aff'd
State v. Sailee 792 N.W.2d 90 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Sailee 792 N.W.2d 90 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
That part of the inquiry requires consideration of whether the prior felony offenses involved acts “similar to the present offense in motive, purpose, results, participants, victims or other characteristics.”
State v. Zais 790 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Zais 790 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. McClenton 781 N.W.2d 181 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. McClenton 781 N.W.2d 181 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
A pattern of criminal conduct “may be demonstrated by reference to past felony or gross misdemeanor convictions or by proof, through clear and convincing evidence, of prior, uncharged acts of criminal conduct, where such acts are similar to the present offense in motive, purpose, results, participants, victims or other characteristics.”
State v. Wiskow 774 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Wiskow 774 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
For example, the determination involves a subjective comparison of “motive, purpose, results, participants, victims or other shared characteristics.”
Kratzer v. Welsh Companies, LLC 771 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2009
Kratzer v. Welsh Companies, LLC 771 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2009
State v. Peck 756 N.W.2d 510 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Peck 756 N.W.2d 510 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Outlaw 748 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Outlaw 748 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
A “pattern of criminal conduct” is established upon “proof of criminal conduct similar, but not identical, in motive, purpose, results, participants, victims or other shared characteristics.”
State v. Henderson 706 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 2005
State v. Henderson 706 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 2005
We previously examined the meaning of “pattern of criminal conduct”
State v. Mitchell 687 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Mitchell 687 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
A “pattern of criminal conduct” refers to “acts related to one another through a common scheme or plan or shared criminal purpose.” (quoting Minn.Stat.
State v. Smith 655 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Smith 655 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Simmons 646 N.W.2d 564 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Simmons 646 N.W.2d 564 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
A pattern of criminal conduct may be demonstrated by “criminal conduct similar, but not identical, in motive, purpose, results, participants, victims or other shared characteristics.”
Kolton v. County of Anoka 645 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 2002
Kolton v. County of Anoka 645 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 2002
Prior Lake American v. Mader 642 N.W.2d 729 Minn. 2002
Prior Lake American v. Mader 642 N.W.2d 729 Minn. 2002
‘Words and phrases which have acquired an established meaning by judicial construction are deemed to be used in the same sense in a subsequent statute relating to the same subject matter.” Minn. Wood Specialties, (stating that prior judicial efforts to define a term may guide a court’s interpretation of a statute).
State v. Charles 634 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Charles 634 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(commenting that felony-murder rule provides for imputing malice to accidental killing, not imputing act of killing); (stating that to establish felony murder, state must prove defendant intended to assault victim), af f'd on other grounds, (stating conviction for felony murder with underlying felony of second-degree assault requires finding of intent to assault), review denied (Minn. Aug.
State v. McCoy 631 N.W.2d 446 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. McCoy 631 N.W.2d 446 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(concluding that, under career-offender statute, pattern of criminal conduct can be demonstrated by uncharged offenses where acts were similar to charged offense “in motive, purpose, results, participants, victims, or other characteristics”).
Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Philip Morris Inc. 621 N.W.2d 2 Minn. 2001
Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Philip Morris Inc. 621 N.W.2d 2 Minn. 2001
Gorman v. State 619 N.W.2d 802 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Gorman v. State 619 N.W.2d 802 Minn. Ct. App. 2000