Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Ture v. State, 353 N.W.2d 518.

95 citing documents.

State v. Frank 416 N.W.2d 744 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. King 414 N.W.2d 214 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Holden 414 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Holden 414 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. King 414 N.W.2d 214 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Lande v. State 406 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Bingham 406 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Bingham 406 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Lande v. State 406 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Peterson 405 N.W.2d 545 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Peterson 405 N.W.2d 545 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
’ zone of privacy by assaulting them in their own homes, (3) the particular vulnerability of the victims and the exploitation of the vulnerability, -37 (Minn.1982); and (4) multiple penetration
State v. Gettel 404 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Gettel 404 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Daby 394 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Daby 394 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Gelhar 392 N.W.2d 609 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Gelhar 392 N.W.2d 609 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
The aggravated sentence was justified because the crime was committed in the victim’s home, violating her zone of privacy, because the victim was particularly vulnerable, Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines II.D.2.b.(1); and because of the particular cruelty inflicted on the victim for which appellant should be held responsible.
State v. Lohmeier 390 N.W.2d 882 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Lohmeier 390 N.W.2d 882 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
While this issue should have been raised in the trial court, no purpose would be served in remanding because appellant’s contentions are irrefutable.
State v. Robinson 388 N.W.2d 43 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Robinson 388 N.W.2d 43 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
The general issue facing a sentencing court when making durational departure decisions is “whether the defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.” ().
State v. Hodges 384 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Hodges 384 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Titworth 381 N.W.2d 510 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Titworth 381 N.W.2d 510 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Dooley 380 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Dooley 380 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See, State v. Prudhomme, 303 Minn. 376
State v. Garcia 374 N.W.2d 477 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Garcia 374 N.W.2d 477 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Coleman 373 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 1985
State v. Coleman 373 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 1985
State v. O'BRIEN 369 N.W.2d 525 Minn. 1985
State v. O'BRIEN 369 N.W.2d 525 Minn. 1985
(durational departure upheld in part because “as a result of the incident, the victim, who later discovered she was pregnant, had to go through her entire pregnancy without knowing for sure whether the biological father of the unborn child was defendant or her boyfriend”).
State v. Packard 366 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Packard 366 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
-23 (Minn.1984); State v. Kemp, 305 *
State v. Spencer 366 N.W.2d 656 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Spencer 366 N.W.2d 656 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Kennedy 363 N.W.2d 863 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Kennedy 363 N.W.2d 863 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174 , See
State v. Fischer 354 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Fischer 354 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
This evidence is admissible if “defendant’s participation in the other crimes is clear and convincing, if the evidence is relevant and material to the state’s case, and if the probative character of the evidence outweighs its potential for unfair prejudice.” at 521 (Minn.1984).
State v. McAlpine 352 N.W.2d 101 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. McAlpine 352 N.W.2d 101 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Ture 353 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 1984
State v. Ture 353 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 1984
We affirm the trial court’s filed herewith.