Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Norris, 428 N.W.2d 61.

105 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Gavin Patrick Meany Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Gavin Patrick Meany Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See, -49 (Minn. 2003) (reversing more-than-double upward departure of 480 months on kidnapping conviction and remanding for imposition of sentence of between 216 and 240 months); -71 (Minn. 1988) (modifying life sentence on first-degree murder and five consecutive 60-month sentences for second- degree assault by ordering three assault sentences to run concurrently).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
(explaining that, although “technically permissible,” five consecutive 60 -month sentences, added to a life sentence, unfairly exaggerated the defendant’s criminality); see also State v. Goulette , d 793, 79 5 (Minn. 1989) (concluding similarly regarding a defendant who received five sen
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
in support of this argument.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
at 795; cf. State v. Norris , –71 (Minn. 1988) (holding that five 60 - month sentences for assault runn ing consecutive with each other and with life imprisonment sentence for first-degree murder, exaggerated criminality, but only reducing three of five assault sentences to run concurrently).
Adalberto Sevilla, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Jamie Charlotte Blahowski Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jamie Charlotte Blahowski Minn. Ct. App. 2016
For example, misdemeanor theft by shoplifting generally is not a crime involving dishonesty or false statement, while theft by swindle categorically is a crime involving dishonesty or false statement, (concluding that district court did not err in ruling that defendant’s prior conviction of theft by swindle was admissible under Minn. R. Evid.
State of Minnesota v. Randal Anthony Daher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Randal Anthony Daher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(concluding that theft by shoplifting is not a crime of dishonesty or false statement), (concluding that theft by swindle is a crime of dishonesty or false statement).
State of Minnesota v. Deontray Vershon Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Deontray Vershon Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2016
to show that this court is authorized to reduce a sentence that unfairly exaggerates the criminality of the defendant’s conduct.
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Dwayne Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Dwayne Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2015
4 for the proposition that this court must vacate appellant’s 60-month sentence because it “unfairly exaggerates the criminality of appellant’s conduct.” However, appellant’s reliance on Norris and Goulette is misguided, as neither Norris nor Goulette
Hooper v. State 838 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 2013
Hooper v. State 838 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 2013
See Hill, d at 651 (discussing the impeachment value of so-called “infamous” crimes, including those involving dishonesty (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)); (noting that theft by swindle is a crime involving dishonesty).
State v. Franks 742 N.W.2d 7 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Franks 742 N.W.2d 7 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
McLaughlin, d at 715 ; -71 (Minn.1988) (reviewing for unfair exaggeration of criminality of defendant’s conduct).
State v. Ness 707 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2006
State v. Ness 707 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2006
Our cases make clear, however, that the common scheme or plan exception includes evidence only of offenses that have a “marked similarity in modus operandi to the charged offense.” Forsman, d at 166 (emphasis added)
State v. Rhoades 690 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Rhoades 690 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
-71 (Minn.1988) (reducing sentence as unfair); (upholding sentence as uniform with other similarly situated offenders).
State v. Leja 684 N.W.2d 442 Minn. 2004
State v. Leja 684 N.W.2d 442 Minn. 2004
(holding that the sentence imposed by the district court unduly exaggerated the criminality of defendant’s conduct).
Brown v. State 682 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2004
Brown v. State 682 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2004
“In reviewing the sufficiency of the corroborating evidence of an accomplice’s testimony, a reviewing court will view the evidence in the light most favorable to the state and will resolve all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the verdict.”
Carpenter v. State 674 N.W.2d 184 Minn. 2004
Carpenter v. State 674 N.W.2d 184 Minn. 2004
State v. Richardson 670 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2003
State v. Richardson 670 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2003
(); -97 (Minn.1995) (detailing procedural requirements and safeguards governing other-crimes evidence).
Neal v. State 658 N.W.2d 536 Minn. 2003
Neal v. State 658 N.W.2d 536 Minn. 2003
State v. Pippitt 645 N.W.2d 87 Minn. 2002
State v. Pippitt 645 N.W.2d 87 Minn. 2002
“Corroborative evidence supporting the testimony of an accomplice must be ‘weighty enough to restore confidence in the accomplice’s testimony, confirming its truth and pointing to the defendant’s guilt in some substantial way.’ ” (-67 (Minn.1988)).
State v. Lewis 638 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Lewis 638 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Nelson 632 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 2001
State v. Nelson 632 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 2001
Burns v. State 621 N.W.2d 55 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Burns v. State 621 N.W.2d 55 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Hooper 620 N.W.2d 31 Minn. 2000
State v. Hooper 620 N.W.2d 31 Minn. 2000
Corroborative evidence supporting the testimony of an accomplice must be “weighty enough to restore confidence in the accomplice’s testimony, confirming its truth and pointing to the defendant’s guilt in some substantial way.” -67 (Minn.1988).
Santiago v. State 617 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Santiago v. State 617 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Sanders 598 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1999
State v. Sanders 598 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1999
State v. Munger 597 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Munger 597 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
In a pro se supplemental brief, appellant argues that the imposition of a consecutive sentence unduly exaggerates the criminality of his conduct, , 340 n. 2 (Minn.App.1993) *574 ( for proposition that permissive consecutive sentence must not unfairly exaggerate criminality of defendant’s conduct).
State v. Pelawa 590 N.W.2d 142 Minn. Ct. App. 1999