DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Back, 341 N.W.2d 273.

177 citing documents.

  • State v. Bates 507 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    The issue before a trial court in deciding whether to depart durationally is “whether the defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.” ().
  • State v. Bock 490 N.W.2d 116 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Bock 490 N.W.2d 116 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    (invasion of victim’s home was an aggravating factor warranting departure in a felony-murder because victim “was a totally innocent person who was in a place where she had every right to expect she was safe”).
  • State v. Allen 482 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Allen 482 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Bauer 471 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Bauer 471 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • 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 issue before a trial court in deciding whether to depart durationally is “whether the defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.” ()
  • State v. Kobow 466 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Kobow 466 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • Holmes v. State 437 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 1989
  • Holmes v. State 437 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 1989
    “The general issue that faces a trial court in deciding whether to depart dura-tionally is whether the defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.”
  • State v. Bicek 429 N.W.2d 289 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Bicek 429 N.W.2d 289 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    (defendant’s remorse may bear on dispositional departure).
  • State v. Wenthold 427 N.W.2d 10 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Wenthold 427 N.W.2d 10 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • Johnson v. State 421 N.W.2d 327 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • Johnson v. State 421 N.W.2d 327 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Dick 419 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Dick 419 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Frank 416 N.W.2d 744 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Frank 416 N.W.2d 744 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Ulvestad 414 N.W.2d 737 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Ulvestad 414 N.W.2d 737 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Graham 410 N.W.2d 395 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Graham 410 N.W.2d 395 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    for rev. denied (Minn. June 25, 1987) (particular cruelty); (vulnerability of victims); (intrusion into victim’s home); (permanent injuries).
  • State v. Mitjans 408 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1987
  • State v. Mitjans 408 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1987
    -77 (Minn.1983), “[i]f there is such a thing as a typical felony murder, it probably is an unintentional killing that occurs in the course of robbery or some other crime against the person.” By definition, felony murder involves an unintentional killing resulting from the commission of a crime against the person o
  • State v. Schwab 404 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Schwab 404 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • 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:
  • State v. Edmison 398 N.W.2d 584 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Edmison 398 N.W.2d 584 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Walker v. State 394 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Walker v. State 394 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    the supreme court found a burglary to be an appropriate underlying offense for the felony murder rule and noted: the felony murder rule can be used even when the underlying felony is a property offense if that offense, as committed, involves special danger to human life.
  • State v. Lambert 388 N.W.2d 34 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Lambert 388 N.W.2d 34 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    (trial court possesses broad discretion in sentencing).
  • State v. Johnston 390 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Johnston 390 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Robinson 388 N.W.2d 43 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Robinson 388 N.W.2d 43 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Hodges 384 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Hodges 384 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Lewis 385 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Lewis 385 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Edwards 380 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Edwards 380 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Larson 379 N.W.2d 165 Minn. Ct. App. 1985