DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Grossman, 636 N.W.2d 545.

52 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    The party challenging a statute’s constitutionality must establish “beyond a reasonable doubt, that the statute violates a provision of the constitution.”
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    “A party challenging a statute on constitutional grounds must demonstrate, bey ond a reasonable doubt, that the statute violates a provision of the constitution.”
  • State v. Meger 901 N.W.2d 418 Minn. 2017
  • State v. Meger 901 N.W.2d 418 Minn. 2017
    The court of appeals affirmed, holding that Her applies retroactively because it *421 was “merely 'an application of the Sixth Amendment jury-trial right that governed the Minnesota Supreme Court’s previous decisions in” and U.S. Supreme Court Sixth Amendment precedent.
  • State of Minnesota v. Brian William Meger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Brian William Meger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. David Lee Haywood 869 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. David Lee Haywood 869 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    “A party challenging a statute on constitutional grounds must demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the statute violates a provision of the constitution.”
  • State of Minnesota v. Ge Her 862 N.W.2d 692 Minn. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Ge Her 862 N.W.2d 692 Minn. 2015
    (considering Minn. Stat. § 609.108, subd.
  • Randall Mark Spears v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • Randall Mark Spears v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    (holding that enhancement of the statutory maximum 30-year sentence for first-degree criminal sexual conduct based on judicial findings under the patterned-sex-offender statute is unconstitutional).
  • State v. Thiel 846 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State v. Thiel 846 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    The party challenging the constitutionality of the statute “must demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the statute violates a provision of the constitution.”
  • State v. Ge Her 843 N.W.2d 590 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State v. Ge Her 843 N.W.2d 590 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    2348, 2356 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) (quotation omitted); (applying Apprendi in Minnesota).
  • In re the Welfare of B.A.H. 829 N.W.2d 431 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • In re the Welfare of B.A.H. 829 N.W.2d 431 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
    The party challenging a statute’s constitutionality must establish “beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute violates a provision of the constitution.”
  • State v. Craig 807 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • State v. Craig 807 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
    “A party challenging a statute on constitutional grounds must demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the statute violates a provision of the constitution.”
  • State v. Bussmann 741 N.W.2d 79 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Bussmann 741 N.W.2d 79 Minn. 2007
    See, (holding Minnesota’s patterned sex offender sen-fence enhancement statute unconstitutional as applied to one defendant and noting our doubts as to whether the statute could ever be constitutionally applied); McDonnell v. Comm’r of Pub.
  • Spears v. State 725 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 2006
  • Spears v. State 725 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Osborne 715 N.W.2d 436 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Osborne 715 N.W.2d 436 Minn. 2006
    d at 271 , "[pjrior to Blakely , 'statutory maximum’ was generally thought to mean the heaviest penalty a court could impose on a defendant — the ceiling of the relevant statutory sentencing range.” See also, (construing the term "statutory maximum” from Apprendi to be the maximum sentence authorized by the legislature); (holding that Apprendi was not implicated where only the minimum term of imprisonment was affected by a finding by the court without a jury, s
  • State v. Houston 702 N.W.2d 268 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Houston 702 N.W.2d 268 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Boehl 697 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Boehl 697 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Whitley 682 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Whitley 682 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • O'MEARA v. State 679 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 2004
  • O'MEARA v. State 679 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 2004
    we applied the Apprendi holding to Minnesota's patterned sex offender sentence enhancement statute, Minn.Stat.
  • State v. Tennin 674 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Tennin 674 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Welch 675 N.W.2d 615 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Welch 675 N.W.2d 615 Minn. 2004
    2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), aff'd
  • State v. Kolla 672 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Kolla 672 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Smith 669 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Smith 669 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 2003
    2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), whether he had a prior conviction for a heinous crime should have been submitted to the grand jury, proven at trial, and found by the petit jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • State v. Henning 666 N.W.2d 379 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Henning 666 N.W.2d 379 Minn. 2003
  • Meemken v. State 662 N.W.2d 146 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • Meemken v. State 662 N.W.2d 146 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Jones 659 N.W.2d 748 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Jones 659 N.W.2d 748 Minn. 2003
    State v. Gross- *751 man
  • State v. Kelbel 648 N.W.2d 690 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Kelbel 648 N.W.2d 690 Minn. 2002
    Minn. *702 Stat. § 645.16 (2000)