Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. McGee, 347 N.W.2d 802.

73 citing documents.

Luke Joshua Cain, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
d 802, 806 n.1 (Minn. 1984).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(determining that defendant’s conduct was more culpable than a typi cal offense when he struck victim with vehicle and failed to stop or render aid, even after witnesses directed him to stop).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
And remorse may su pport a durational departure only when it “could relate back and be considered as evidence bearing on a determination of the cruelty or seriousness of the [offender’s] conduct.” State v. McGee , n.1 (Minn. 1984).
State v. Thonesavanh 904 N.W.2d 432 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Miles Solberg 882 N.W.2d 618 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Miles Solberg 882 N.W.2d 618 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. David Alan Nielsen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. David Alan Nielsen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
seriousness of the conduct on which the conviction was based.” n.1 (Minn. 1984).
State of Minnesota v. Zaki Mohamed Sugule Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Zaki Mohamed Sugule Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“However, there may be cases in which the defendant’s lack of remorse could relate back and be considered as evidence bearing on a determination of the cruelty or seriousness of the conduct on which the conviction was based.” n.1 (Minn. 1984).
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Miles Solberg 869 N.W.2d 66 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Miles Solberg 869 N.W.2d 66 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
27, 1994); n.1 (Minn. 1984) (“[T]here may be cases in which the defendant’s lack of remorse could .
State of Minnesota v. Parnard Smith, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Shannon Marie Kiesner Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Shannon Marie Kiesner Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“However, there may be cases in which the defendant’s lack of remorse could relate back and be considered as evidence bearing on a determination of the cruelty or seriousness of the conduct on which the conviction was based.” n.1 (Minn. 1984).
State of Minnesota v. Parnard Smith, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
the cruelty or seriousness of the conduct on which the conviction was based.” n.1 (Minn. 1984); see also Bauerly, d at 762-63 (affirming “minimal” downward durational departure, in theft offense, based on defendant’s remorse).
State of Minnesota v. Bradley James Schnickel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bradley James Schnickel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In Bauerly, n.1 (Minn. 1984), stating that “lack of remorse could relate back and be considered as evidence bearing on a determination of the cruelty or seriousness of 8 the conduct on which the conviction is based,” d at 762.
State of Minnesota v. Leroy Lamar Morris Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Leroy Lamar Morris Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“However, there may be cases in which the defendant’s lack of remorse could relate back and be considered as evidence bearing on a determination of the cruelty or seriousness of the conduct on which the conviction was based.” n.1 (Minn. 1984).
State of Minnesota v. Leann Bobleter Sargent Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Leann Bobleter Sargent Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“However, there may be cases in which the defendant’s lack of remorse could relate back and be considered as evidence bearing on a determination of the cruelty or seriousness of the conduct on which the conviction was based.” n.1 (Minn. 1984).
State of Minnesota v. President Pimping Austin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. President Pimping Austin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
But “there may be cases in which the defendant’s lack of remorse could relate back and be considered as evidence bearing on a determination of the cruelty or seriousness of the conduct on which the conviction was based.” n.1 (Minn. 1984); see, (“[T]he sentencing court may take into consideration the offense-related conduct of trying to pin the blame for the offense on someone else.”).
State of Minnesota v. David Edward Westgard Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. David Edward Westgard Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“However, there may be cases in which the defendant’s lack of remorse 7 could relate back and be considered as evidence bearing on a determination of the cruelty or seriousness of the conduct on which the conviction was based.” n.1 (Minn. 1984).
State v. Rick 821 N.W.2d 610 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Rick 821 N.W.2d 610 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
-06 (Minn.1984) (stating that when applying the rule of lenity to the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines, “commission policy and official commission interpretation should be looked to in resolving ambiguities”).
State v. Campbell 814 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2012
State v. Campbell 814 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2012
Additionally, when interpreting an ambiguous provision of the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines, we look to “commission policy and official commission interpretation.”
State v. Maurstad 733 N.W.2d 141 Minn. 2007
State v. Maurstad 733 N.W.2d 141 Minn. 2007
-06 (Minn.1984) for the proposition that when the sentencing guidelines are ambiguous, we should resolve the ambiguity by looking to "commission policy and official commission interpretation” in addition to the rule of lenity.
State v. Maurstad 706 N.W.2d 545 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Maurstad 706 N.W.2d 545 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Hough 585 N.W.2d 393 Minn. 1998
State v. Hough 585 N.W.2d 393 Minn. 1998
State v. Folkers 581 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 1998
State v. Folkers 581 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 1998
(concealment of the victim’s body shows particular cruelty and is an appropriate aggravating circumstance justifying departure); , 806 n. 1 (Minn.1984) (generally, lack of remorse not a factor, but in some cases may be considered as evidence of cruelty or seriousness of the conduct); (trying to blame someone else for the offense charged is appropriate consideration for upward departure).
State v. VanZee 547 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. VanZee 547 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
806 n. 1 (Minn.1984), for the proposition that, although lack of remorse may properly support a dispositional departure, it is generally not appropriate as a factor justifying a durational departure.
State v. Chaklos 528 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 1995
State v. Chaklos 528 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 1995
State v. Bauerly 520 N.W.2d 760 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Bauerly 520 N.W.2d 760 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Condon 497 N.W.2d 272 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Condon 497 N.W.2d 272 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Weaver 474 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 1991
State v. Weaver 474 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 1991
On the propriety of looking at the prior record in a case such as this, which is the leading case dealing with departures for defendants convicted not of this offense but of criminal vehicular operation resulting in death.
State v. Rasinski 472 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 1991