Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Ouk, 516 N.W.2d 180.

49 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
According to McInnis, every other juvenile who has been given consecutive sentences on murder convictions ha s “intentionally directed [the criminal act ] towards more than one person .” He cites State v. Ali , , and State v. Brom , .
State v. Ali 895 N.W.2d 237 Minn. 2017
State v. Ali 895 N.W.2d 237 Minn. 2017
Ali, d at 259-60 ; see McLaughlin, d at 715-16 (upholding the imposition of two consecutive life sentences for an offender who killed two of his classmates when he was 15 years old, and noting that “youth” was a factor in numerous cases in which we had upheld comparable sentences, especially those involving “particularly callous murders”); 186 (Minn. 1994) (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing two life sentences for a juvenile offender’s two first-degree murde
Kim Thul Ouk v. State of Minnesota 884 N.W.2d 392 Minn. 2016
Kim Thul Ouk v. State of Minnesota 884 N.W.2d 392 Minn. 2016
State v. Ouk (Ouk I), 2 On August 21, 2015, Ouk moved to correct his sentences under Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota v. Mahdi Hassan Ali 855 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Mahdi Hassan Ali 855 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 2014
that a district court abused its discretion in imposing concurrent sentences on a defendant who shot and killed three victims); (affirming consecutive sentences for a 15-year-old who shot and killed two people at close range); (affirming consecutive life sentences for a 16-year-old who murdered his parents and siblings with an ax).
Kim Thul Ouk v. State 847 N.W.2d 698 Minn. 2014
Kim Thul Ouk v. State 847 N.W.2d 698 Minn. 2014
State v. Vang 847 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 2014
State v. Vang 847 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 2014
Moreover, we concluded that the juvenile’s sentence was not unusual as we had already affirmed a life sentence given to a 15- and there was no consensus among the states that the sentence offended evolving standards of decency nationwide.
State v. Fardan 773 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2009
State v. McLaughlin 725 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 2007
State v. McLaughlin 725 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 2007
(upholding consecutive sentences for 15-year-old who shot four victims at close range when none offered any resistance); (upholding consecutive sentences for 16-year-old who killed four family members with an ax).
State v. Burrell 697 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2005
State v. Burrell 697 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2005
State v. Bailey 677 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 2004
State v. Darris 648 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 2002
State v. Darris 648 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 2002
See, -16, 20 (Minn.1996) (affirming conviction when appellant shot and killed driver of car appellant was robbing); -45 (Minn.1995); (affirming conviction when appellant and others set out to rob gas station and shot and killed two people during the robbery); -14 (Minn.1993); -26 (Minn.1990) (affirming convi
In Re the Welfare of D.B.X. 638 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re the Welfare of D.B.X. 638 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
There is no requirement that Miranda warnings “take a rigid form so long as they are correct in substance.” (citation omitted).
State v. Warren 592 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 1999
State v. Warren 592 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 1999
See, (15-year-old sentenced to two life sentences and two 180-month sentences to be served consecutively for shooting two clerks and two customers during a robbery); Miller, d at 239 (three consecutive life sentences for shooting three victims in the head at close range); Brom, d at 761 (
State v. Chambers 589 N.W.2d 466 Minn. 1999
State v. Chambers 589 N.W.2d 466 Minn. 1999
See Mitchell, d at 481 (upholding sentence of life imprisonment as applied to 15-year-old convicted of first-degree murder); (upholding consecutive sentences of two life imprisonment sentences and two 180-month sentences as applied to 15-year-old convicted of murder).
State v. Scott 584 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 1998
State v. Scott 584 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 1998
See, (holding that a 15-year-old was of suitable intelligence and maturity to validly waive Miranda rights, specifically focusing on the fact that the juvenile had been advised of his rights on three prior occasions and had once asked for an attorney); -37 (Minn.1984) (
State v. Mitchell 577 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1998
State v. Mitchell 577 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1998
State v. Hough 571 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Hough 571 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Miller 573 N.W.2d 661 Minn. 1998
State v. Miller 573 N.W.2d 661 Minn. 1998
See, (indicating that defendant had had prior contacts with police in which he was informed of his rights); (noting that 15-year-old suspect had been advised of his rights on at least three earlier occasions).
State v. Jones 566 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 1997
State v. Jones 566 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 1997
State v. Dominguez-Ramirez 563 N.W.2d 245 Minn. 1997
State v. Dominguez-Ramirez 563 N.W.2d 245 Minn. 1997
State v. *253 Ouk, (citing California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355, 359-61 , 101 S.Ct.
In Re Welfare of G. (NMN) M. 560 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 1997
In Re Welfare of G. (NMN) M. 560 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 1997
Andrews, d at 730 ; -85 (Minn. 1994).
State v. Willis 559 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 1997
State v. Willis 559 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 1997
See Wilson, d at 246 ; n.5 (Minn.1992) (holding that consecutive sentences could be appropriate for appellant who stabbed two people to death, one being a 2½-year-old child); (affirming consecutive life sentences for appellant who shot four victims at close range when it was a “mere fortuity” that two victims survived); Bangert, d at 547 (finding consecutive sentences proper for appellant who shot and killed two victims while they slept).
In Re the Welfare of G. (NMN) M. 542 N.W.2d 54 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
In Re the Welfare of G. (NMN) M. 542 N.W.2d 54 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Whether a confession by a juvenile is voluntary is a question of fact dependent on the totality of the circumstances, including “the child’s age, maturity, intelligence, education, and the *60 presence or absence of parents.” -85 (Minn.1994).
State v. Wilson 539 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1995
State v. Wilson 539 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1995
(affirming imposition of consecutive life sentences where defendant methodically shot each of four victims at close range where death was foreseeable result).
State v. Williams 535 N.W.2d 277 Minn. 1995
State v. Williams 535 N.W.2d 277 Minn. 1995
In Re the Welfare of M.E.P. 523 N.W.2d 913 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
In Re the Welfare of M.E.P. 523 N.W.2d 913 Minn. Ct. App. 1994