Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Reinke, 343 N.W.2d 660.

33 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
8”); (“Here the personal injury took the form of an abrasion in the area of the victim’s pubis, pain at the time of the assault, and subsequent back pain attributable to the assault.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See State v. Reinke , (stating that evidence of the victim’s emotional condition at the time she complained to others is corroborating evidence of a victim’s testimony).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See, e.g., State v. Mattson , -15 (Minn. 1985) ( concluding that victim sustained bodily harm because defendant’s contact caused bruising); (concluding that victim sustained bodily harm because of visible abrasion).
Kenneth Jerome Brunner v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Kenneth Jerome Brunner v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Esteban Perez-Juarez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Esteban Perez-Juarez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See id.; (finding sufficient evidence of personal injury when there was “an abrasion in the area of the victim’s pubis, pain at the time of the assault, and subsequent back pain attributable to the assault”); (affirming second- degree criminal-sexual-
State v. Johnson 679 N.W.2d 378 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Wright 679 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Wright 679 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Johnson 679 N.W.2d 378 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Jarvis 649 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Jarvis 649 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
(rejecting argument that ihere are vagueness and due process problems with the criminal sexual conduct statutes where defendant argued state failed to establish personal injury for first-degree sexual assault charge).
State v. Stafford 404 N.W.2d 918 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Stafford 404 N.W.2d 918 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Whiteside 400 N.W.2d 140 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Harris v. State 399 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Harris v. State 399 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(discussing similar facts supporting an allegation of rape).
State v. Whiteside 400 N.W.2d 140 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(pri- or conviction for fourth-degree criminal *145 sexual conduct admissible when the offense charged was first-degree criminal sexual conduct); Bettin, (prior conviction for rape admissible when offense charged was third-degree criminal sexual conduct); Brouillette, (prior c
Powe v. State 389 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Powe v. State 389 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Kennie 381 N.W.2d 13 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Kennie 381 N.W.2d 13 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Mattson 376 N.W.2d 413 Minn. 1985
State v. Mattson 376 N.W.2d 413 Minn. 1985
State v. DeBaere 356 N.W.2d 301 Minn. 1984
State v. DeBaere 356 N.W.2d 301 Minn. 1984
Defendant’s claim that the evidence of “personal injury” was legally insufficient is answered by a number of our decisions, where we found sufficient evidence of “personal injury” in evidence of an abrasion in the area of the victim’s pubis, pain at the time of the assault, and subsequent back pain attributable to the assault.
State v. Heidelberger 353 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Heidelberger 353 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
See e.g. State v. Bettin (use of prior rape conviction when the offense charged was criminal sexual conduct in the third degree); State v. Brouillette (use of prior conviction for criminal sexual conduct in the third degree when the offense charged was criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree); (use of prior conviction for criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree when the offense charged was criminal sexual conduct in the first degree).