Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Kelbel, 648 N.W.2d 690.

37 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
- 33 D-2 (Minn. 2007); -703 (Minn. 2002); Ihle, d at 917-19; -39 (Minn. 2001).
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Wayne Quaderer Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Wayne Quaderer Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Sherif Mohamed Abdeltawwab Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Sherif Mohamed Abdeltawwab Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(first-degree 9 murder based on a pattern of past child abuse); Crowsbreast, d at 439 (first-degree murder based on a pattern of past domestic abuse).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
In such case s, “ ‘statutory construction is neither necessary nor permitt ed.’ ” ().
Andrew Carufel, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
LaPenotiere v. State 916 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2018
LaPenotiere v. State 916 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2018
State v. Kelbel , , 701 (Minn. 2002).
State of Minnesota v. Alonzo Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alonzo Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2015
.”); Johnson, d at 86 (“We have said in the past that the State may prove a pattern beyond a reasonable doubt 5 even if the State does not prove every claimed predicate act of the pattern beyond a reasonable doubt.”); (“[F]or the same reasons as in Cross, we conclude that the plain language of section 609.185(5) does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to each of the acts constituting a ‘past pattern of child abuse.’” (quoting Minn. Stat. § 609.185(5) (2000))).
State of Minnesota v. David Muniz Bustos 861 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Muniz Bustos 861 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 2015
2 Johnson, d at 86-87; -700 (Minn.2002); Cross, d at 727 (concluding that the State does not have to prove each underlying act of domestic abuse beyond a reasonable doubt, as long as the jury finds that at least two of the underlying acts were proven).
State of Minnesota v. Dayna Kristine Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dayna Kristine Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
When legislative intent “is clearly discernible from plain and unambiguous language, statutory construction is neither necessary nor permitted.” cert.
State v. Stahosky 836 N.W.2d 769 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Stahosky 836 N.W.2d 769 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
When legislative intent “is clearly discernible from plain and unambiguous language, statutory construction is neither necessary nor permitted.”
In re H.A.L. 828 N.W.2d 476 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
In re H.A.L. 828 N.W.2d 476 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Helmberger v. Johnson Controls, Inc. 821 N.W.2d 831 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Helmberger v. Johnson Controls, Inc. 821 N.W.2d 831 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Hokanson 821 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2012
State v. Hokanson 821 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2012
-702 (Minn.2002) (explaining that the element of the offense is the pattern of child abuse, not the incidents of abuse itself).
Effrem v. Effrem 818 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Effrem v. Effrem 818 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Freeman v. State 804 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Freeman v. State 804 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Infante 796 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Infante 796 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
at 1710 , , 700 n. 1 (Minn.2002).
State v. Johnson 773 N.W.2d 81 Minn. 2009
State v. Johnson 773 N.W.2d 81 Minn. 2009
stating that the State need only present sufficient evidence of enough underlying acts to constitute a pattern beyond a reasonable doubt.
State v. PTACEK 766 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. PTACEK 766 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Barnes 713 N.W.2d 325 Minn. 2006
State v. Barnes 713 N.W.2d 325 Minn. 2006
(upholding an identical element from the first-degree child abuse murder statute).
State v. Manley 664 N.W.2d 275 Minn. 2003
State v. Manley 664 N.W.2d 275 Minn. 2003
After the parties filed their briefs, but before oral argument in this ease, cert.