Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Winchell, 363 N.W.2d 747.

71 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
-51 (Minn. 1985) (comparing the facts of the underlying case to other cases when determining whether the offen se was more serious than a typical case ).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-18 (Minn. 1983) (sta ting that upward departure is justified when crime committed in victim’s zone of privacy); see State v. Winchell , d 747, 750 (Minn. 1985) (stating that victim’s zone of privacy includes victim’s home).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
3 Citing State v. Winchell, the state argues that Bianco attempted to plead “not very guilty.”
State of Minnesota v. Devon Derrick Parker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Devon Derrick Parker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 747, 750 (Minn. 1985).
State v. Jackson 749 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 2008
State v. Jackson 749 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 2008
(affirming sentencing departure when robbery occurred in late-night home invasion, defendant and his accomplice bound the victims, defendant put three people in fear, a young child was present, defendant held a gun next to a victim’s head, and rape was discussed).
State v. Jordan 726 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Jordan 726 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
“Underlying the Minnesota statutory rule ...’ is the belief that a nighttime search of a home involves a much greater intrusion upon privacy and is presumably more alarming than an ordinary daytime search of a home.” -40 (Minn.1978); (stating that in adopting section 626.14 “[t]he legislature recognized that entry into a residence in the middle of the night is a greater invasion of residential privacy than entry during the 'daytime”).
State v. Bourke 718 N.W.2d 922 Minn. 2006
State v. Bourke 718 N.W.2d 922 Minn. 2006
We have said that, in enacting section 626.14, “[t]he legislature recognized that entry into a residence in the middle of the night is a greater invasion of residential privacy than entry during the daytime.” see also Lien, d at 839-40 (“Underlying the Minnesota statutory rule * * * is the belief that a nighttime search of a home involves a much greater intrusion upon privacy and is presumably more alarming than an ordinary daytime search of a home.”).
State v. Thao 649 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 2002
State v. Thao 649 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 2002
-18 (Minn.1983); -77 (Minn.1982); , 146 n. 3 (Minn.1982).
State v. Davis 546 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Davis 546 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
(defining the zone of privacy to include the victim’s house and curtilage); Garcia, d at 647 (upholding a sentencing departure because the trial court, while relying on a few improper factors, also based its decision on appropriate sentencing considerations and, therefore, did not clearly abu
State v. Smith 541 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 1996
State v. Smith 541 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 1996
State v. Pearson 479 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Pearson 479 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Hart 477 N.W.2d 732 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Hart 477 N.W.2d 732 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
while victim more vulnerable to sexual assault was an aggravating factor); (robbery taking place in victim’s home was aggravating factor); (sexual assault in victim’s backyard violated victim’s zone of privacy and was an aggravating factor).
State v. Lubitz 472 N.W.2d 131 Minn. 1991
State v. Lubitz 472 N.W.2d 131 Minn. 1991
(does not apply), (does apply) (applies in part).
State v. Yanez 469 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Yanez 469 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the trial court is not bound to the facts in the defendant’s “testimony at the time he pleads guilty.” The trial court can “look at the conduct underlying the offense.
State v. Dalsen 444 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Dalsen 444 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Volk 421 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Volk 421 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Dircks 412 N.W.2d 765 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Dircks 412 N.W.2d 765 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Gaines 408 N.W.2d 914 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Gaines 408 N.W.2d 914 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Mitjans 408 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1987
State v. Mitjans 408 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1987
See, in addition to the cases already cited, (upholding upward departure in robbery case in part because three people were put in fear); (upholding upward departure in case involving kidnapping of 5-year-old girl from front yard in part because of emotional distress caused by defendant to the vict
State v. Gonzalez 407 N.W.2d 472 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Gonzalez 407 N.W.2d 472 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
5 (1986) because of appellant’s violation of the victim’s “zone of privacy.”
Ware v. State 406 N.W.2d 598 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Ware v. State 406 N.W.2d 598 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Peterson 405 N.W.2d 545 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Peterson 405 N.W.2d 545 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
The departure reasons include (1) the infliction of gratuitous cruelty on the victims, -77 (Minn.1982); (2) the invasion of the victims’ zone of privacy by assaulting them in their own homes, (3) the particular vulnerability of the victims and the exploitation of the vulnerability, -37 (Minn.1982); and (4) multiple penetration, d
State v. Wickstrom 405 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Wickstrom 405 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
-51 (Minn.1985) (affirming double departure, court noted that victim’s four-year-old daughter was present during assault); pet.
State v. Franson 403 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Franson 403 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Schroeder 401 N.W.2d 671 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Schroeder 401 N.W.2d 671 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
the defendant, convicted of aggravated robbery, similarly denied allegations he threatened the victim with a gun and discussed with his accomplice the possibility of raping her.
State v. Mortland 399 N.W.2d 92 Minn. 1987
State v. Mortland 399 N.W.2d 92 Minn. 1987
Relevant zone-of-privacy cases include:
Hamilton v. State 398 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 1987