Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Thieman, 439 N.W.2d 1.
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(noting that evidence of Thieman making threats to victim offered to prove a propensity or disposition to co mmit murder is inadmissible, b ut holding that such evidence is admissible to show relationship between Thieman and victim).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Heinze relies on State v. Thieman , which reversed an upward durational departure and remanded for imposition of a presumptive guidelines sentence because the sentencing record established that the court mistakenly imposed an upward durational departure instead of a guidelines sentence, and the record did not provide “any other rationale which would support a departure.” –41 (Minn. 2004) (stating that “the proper remedy” for a court’s mistaken imposition of an upward durational departure is modi
- State v. Tomassoni 778 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 2010
-
State v. Tomassoni
778 N.W.2d 327
Minn. 2010
1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966)
- State v. Foreman 680 N.W.2d 536 Minn. 2004
- State v. Foreman 680 N.W.2d 536 Minn. 2004
- State v. Marshall 642 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
- State v. Marshall 642 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
- State v. Reckinger 603 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
- State v. Bauer 598 N.W.2d 352 Minn. 1999
-
State v. Bauer
598 N.W.2d 352
Minn. 1999
See, e.g., Buggs, d at 336-37 ; cert.
- State v. Folkers 562 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
-
State v. Folkers
562 N.W.2d 5
Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Id.; (admitting evidence to show “strained relationship”); (holding history of relationship admissible to place charged offense in proper context), review denied (Minn. Nov.
- State v. Nunn 561 N.W.2d 902 Minn. 1997
- State v. Nunn 561 N.W.2d 902 Minn. 1997
- State v. McAdory 543 N.W.2d 692 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
-
State v. McAdory
543 N.W.2d 692
Minn. Ct. App. 1996
“The use of consecutive sentences in any other ease constitutes a departure from the guidelines and requires written reasons * * *.” Id
- State v. Ford 539 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 1995
- State v. Ford 539 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 1995
- State v. Wilson 535 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 1995
- State v. Wilson 535 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 1995
- State v. Harris 521 N.W.2d 348 Minn. 1994
- State v. Harris 521 N.W.2d 348 Minn. 1994
- State v. Thompson 520 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
-
State v. Thompson
520 N.W.2d 468
Minn. Ct. App. 1994
(prior threat admissible to show strained relationship); -15 (Minn.1980) (prior robberies admissible to show relationship between defendant and victims).
- State v. Lunsford 507 N.W.2d 239 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
-
State v. Lunsford
507 N.W.2d 239
Minn. Ct. App. 1993
(trial court properly admitted “bad acts” evidence showing relationship between defendant and victim).
- State v. Hopkins 486 N.W.2d 809 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
- State v. Hopkins 486 N.W.2d 809 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
- State v. Garrett 479 N.W.2d 745 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
- State v. Garrett 479 N.W.2d 745 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
- State v. Sundstrom 474 N.W.2d 213 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
-
State v. Sundstrom
474 N.W.2d 213
Minn. Ct. App. 1991
(trial court not permitted to give departure reasons for first time at resentencing after discovery that the presumptive sentence was 60 months instead of 108 months as imposed at original sentencing).
- State v. Landin 472 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 1991
-
State v. Landin
472 N.W.2d 854
Minn. 1991
Evidence of other crimes or acts is inadmissible to prove a defendant’s propensity to commit the charged offense, but such evidence may be admitted “ ‘to establish motive, intent, absence of mistake or accident, identity or common scheme or plan.’ ” -03 (Minn.1991).
- State v. Johnson 463 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 1990
- State v. Johnson 463 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 1990
- State v. Pieri 461 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
-
State v. Pieri
461 N.W.2d 398
Minn. Ct. App. 1990
(original departure occasioned by court’s erroneous belief it was imposing the correct presumptive sentence).