Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Leja, 684 N.W.2d 442.

44 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Isaac Gutierrez Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Isaac Gutierrez Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(discussing that, under Minnesota law, a defendant found guilty of aiding and abetting first- or second-degree murder is a principal and cannot also be guilty of aiding after the fact), aff’d as modified on other grounds
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Accordingly, in State v. Leja , this court determined that a statement was not hearsay when it was used “not for its truth, but to show [the defendant’s] knowledge.” aff’d on other grounds, d 442 (Minn. 2004).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Substantial and compelling circumstances for a durational departure are ‘those which demonstrate that the defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.’” ().
Jalisa Yvette Crosby, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
aff’d as modified on other grounds
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Substantial and compelling circumstances for a durational departure “demonstrate that the defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typica lly involved in the commission of the crime in question.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Substantial and compelling circumstances for a durational departure “demonstrate that the ‘defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.’”
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Respondent’s conduct seems to have met the minimum conduct necessary to be “dissemination.” See State v. Leja , (M inn.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Stempfley 900 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 2017
State v. Stempfley 900 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 2017
(stating that when evaluating a durational departure request, courts should examine “each participant’s conduct in relation to the crime”).
A15-1255 Minn. 2017
(stating that when evaluating a durational departure request, courts should examine “each participant’s conduct in relation to the crime”).
State v. Rund 896 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 2017
State v. Rund 896 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 2017
Substantial and compelling circumstances for a durational departure are “those which demonstrate that the ‘defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.’ ” ().
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Lamonthe White Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Lamonthe White Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-64 (Minn. App. 2003), aff’d as modified on other grounds, we found that a prosecutor’s cross- examination question strongly implying the defendant’s postarrest silence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
State of Minnesota v. Larry Darnell Lakes Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Larry Darnell Lakes Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In this context, “typical” conduct includes more than just the conduct that is minimally required for a conviction; it also extends to conduct that is “much more extreme than the minimum conduct required to violate the applicable statute.” d 442, 450 (Minn. 2004).
State of Minnesota v. Mo Savoy Hicks 864 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Mo Savoy Hicks 864 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Julian Sanchez-Sanchez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Julian Sanchez-Sanchez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The underlying purpose of the guidelines “will not be served if the trial courts generally fail to apply the presumptive sentences found in the guidelines.” ().
State v. Hicks 837 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Distinguished State v. Hicks 837 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Rourke 773 N.W.2d 913 Minn. 2009
State v. Rourke 773 N.W.2d 913 Minn. 2009
(plurality opinion) (explaining that although the facts of the case were reprehensible, they did not provide a substantial and compelling reason to depart, including particular cruelty); (explaining that in “the final analysis, our decision whether a part
State v. Buckingham 772 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2009
State v. Buckingham 772 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2009
(reducing a sentence of 210 months to the presumptive sentence of 150 months); (reducing a sentence of 144 months to a double durational departure sentence of 96 months).
State v. Henderson 706 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 2005
State v. Henderson 706 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 2005
293 n. 3 (Minn.1999) (reasonableness of prosecution costs); -69 (Minn.1998) (mandatory minimum fine); , 447 n. 2 (plurality opinion), 457 n. 3 (Blatz, C.J., dissenting) (Minn.2004) (together holding that failure to raise Appren-di/Blakely challenge to sentence on appeal waived issue).
State v. Allen 706 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 2005
State v. Allen 706 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 2005
293 n. 3 (Minn.1999) (reasonableness of prosecution costs); -69 (Minn.1998) (mandatory minimum fine); , 447 n. 2 (plurality opinion), 457 n. 3 (Blatz, C.J., dissenting) (2004) (together holding that failure to raise Apprendi/Blakely challenge to sentence on appeal waived issue).
State v. Skipintheday 704 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Skipintheday 704 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
(holding that it is impossible as a matter of law for a principal to also be *182 guilty of being an accomplice after the fact), rev’d on other grounds, State v. Sullivan, 77 N.J.Super.
State v. Blanche 696 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2005
State v. Blanche 696 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2005
Substantial and compelling circumstances are those which demonstrate that the “defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.” ().
State v. Thompson 694 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Thompson 694 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
In support of this position
State of Arizona v. Jesus Antonio Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Fairbanks 688 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Fairbanks 688 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
447 n. 2 (Minn.2004) (noting that failure to challenge sentence on Apprendi grounds on appeal waives issue).