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)