Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Shamp, 422 N.W.2d 520.

26 citing documents.

A25-1390 Minn. Ct. App. 2026
-25 (Minn. App. 1988), rev. denied (Minn. June 10, 1988).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(explaining that “sexual abuse” includes both sexual penetration and contact), rev. denied (Minn. June 10, 1988).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State v. Shamp , rev. denied (Minn. June 10, 1988).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In State v. Shamp, we held that the victim’s testimony that her father “would rub his fingers between the folds of skin over her vagina, but not insert his fingers ‘all the way’” was “sufficient evidence for the jury to reasonably find penetration.” rev. denied (Minn. June 10, 1988) .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In State v. Shamp, we addressed the sufficiency of the evidence to prove “sexual penetration.” - 25 (Minn. App. 1988), rev. denied (Minn. June 10, 1988).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In State v. Shamp , we addressed the sufficiency of the evidence to prove “sexual penetration.” -25 (Minn. App. 1988), review denied (Minn. June 10, 1988).
Grant Lloyd Greenwood, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Greenwood argues his appellate counsel was ineffective because counsel erroneously interpreted State v. Shamp , -25 (Minn. App. 1988), review denied (Minn. June 10, 1988), to conclude that element (iii) was the same for both counts 2 and 3.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(second degree), review denied (Minn. June 10, 1988); (first degree).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(concluding evidence sufficient to prove penetration where victim testified that defendant touched her genital area, rubbed his fingers between the folds of skin over her vagina, but did not insert his fingers “all the way”), review denied (Minn. App. June 10, 1988).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
However, in State v. Shamp , this court concluded that there was sufficient evidence of sexual penetration when the victim testified that “when [the defendant] touched her genital area, he would rub his fingers between the folds of skin over her vagina, but not insert his fingers ‘all the way.’” review denied (Minn. June 10, 1988).
State v. Duncan 608 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Duncan 608 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
The trial court instructed the jury that "[p]enetration includes rubbing of the fingers between the folds of the vagina.” review denied (Minn. June 10, 1988).
State v. Reckinger 603 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Reckinger 603 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
review denied (Minn. June 10, 1988).
State v. Kates 598 N.W.2d 693 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Kates 598 N.W.2d 693 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
-26 (Minn.App.1988) (affirming district court’s admission of sexual abuse testimony by victim’s younger sister), review denied (Minn. June 10, 1988); (affirming district court’s admission of sexual abuse testimony by defendant involving two other minor female c
Behlke v. Conwed Corp. 474 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Behlke v. Conwed Corp. 474 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Mosby 450 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Mosby 450 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Hunt v. Regents of University 446 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Hunt v. Regents of University 446 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Myers v. Winslow R. Chamberlain Co. 443 N.W.2d 211 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Myers v. Winslow R. Chamberlain Co. 443 N.W.2d 211 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
“Counsel traditionally is given considerable leeway in cross examinations, short of questions which harass or are repetitive.” pet.
State v. Shamp 427 N.W.2d 228 Minn. 1988
State v. Shamp 427 N.W.2d 228 Minn. 1988