Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Myers, 627 N.W.2d 58.

33 citing documents.

Emmanuel Troy Davis, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
( discussing broad discretion).
State v. Litzau 893 N.W.2d 405 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Litzau 893 N.W.2d 405 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-61 (Minn.2001) (affirming a conviction where appellant attempted to escape from the back of a squad car after being arrested); Shimota, d at 365 (affirming a conviction where appellant resisted an officer’s attempt to remove her from a car for a field sobriety test)
State of Minnesota v. Tommy William Mix Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tommy William Mix Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Minnesota appellate courts have repeatedly held that “crime against a person” applies to crimes “whose elements and classifications do not specifically include ‘personal injury,’ based on the substance of the crime and the underlying conduct.” Zais, d 10 at 862, aff’d, (-63 (Minn. 2001) (holding that obstruction of legal process is a crime against a person if the underlying conduct creates a special danger to human life); (noting that burglary is also a crime against a person if, “as committed,”
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Charles Robert Schwartz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Charles Robert Schwartz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Amundson 828 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Amundson 828 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Zais 805 N.W.2d 32 Minn. 2011
State v. Zais 805 N.W.2d 32 Minn. 2011
Id.; -63 (Minn.2001) (concluding that obstructing legal process could be a crime against a person, pursuant to the sentencing guidelines, if the defendant’s underlying conduct in committing the offense “poses a special danger to human life”).
State v. Hahn 799 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Zais 790 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Zais 790 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
-63 (Minn.2001) (holding obstruction of legal process is crime against person if underlying conduct creates special danger to human life); (holding burglary is crime against person if, “as committed,” it is against person).
State v. Spence 768 N.W.2d 104 Minn. 2009
State v. Spence 768 N.W.2d 104 Minn. 2009
(noting that burglary of a dwelling should not be deemed a purely property offense, because it carries with it the possibility of violence and risk to personal safety such that it creates a "special danger to human life”); -90 (Minn.2007); (observing that, depending on the facts, burglary can be considered a "person offense” as opposed to a "property offense” for the purpose of calculating sentences under the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines) (citation omitted).
State v. Adell 755 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Adell 755 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Franks 742 N.W.2d 7 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Franks 742 N.W.2d 7 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Skipintheday 717 N.W.2d 423 Minn. 2006
State v. Skipintheday 717 N.W.2d 423 Minn. 2006
-63 (Minn.2001) (holding that obstructing legal process, while not classified or labeled as a crime against a person in the criminal code, may be a crime against a person under the sentencing guidelines if the defendant's conduct "poses a special danger to human life.”).
State v. Rannow 703 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Rannow 703 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
-63 (Minn.2001) (holding that consecutive sentence for obstructing legal process is crime against person if underlying conduct in committing crime posed special danger to human life); (holding that burglary may qualify as offense against person if “as committed” it is
State v. Leake 699 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 2005
State v. Leake 699 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 2005
Lewis v. State 697 N.W.2d 624 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Lewis v. State 697 N.W.2d 624 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Rouland 685 N.W.2d 706 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Rouland 685 N.W.2d 706 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Kier 678 N.W.2d 672 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Kier 678 N.W.2d 672 Minn. Ct. App. 2004