Minnesota Supreme Court, 1984

State v. McLemore

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided July 27, 1984 · Amdahl

351 N.W.2d 927; 1984 Minn. LEXIS 1409 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

C. Paul Jones, Public Defender, Mark F. Anderson, Asst. Public Defender, Minneapolis, for appellant., Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Thomas L. Johnson, Hennepin County Atty., Vernon E. Bergstrom, Richard Osborne, J. Michael Richardson, Beverly J. Wolfe, Asst. County Attys., Minneapolis, for respondent.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 2018, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Cites Minnesota statutes amended since this decision

Minn. Stat. § 609.035 — amended 1986
Minn. Stat. § 609.343 — amended 1985

Amendment history from the Minnesota Revisor of Statutes. A later amendment does not necessarily affect this decision's analysis — check the current statute text.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Minnesota statutes cited

Sections of the Minnesota Statutes this opinion cites.

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

State v. Barthman (Minn. Ct. App. 2018)
State of Minnesota v. Sedne Bonitaz Williams (Minn. Ct. App. 2016)
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Benjamin Klanderud (Minn. Ct. App. 2016)
State v. Suhon (Minn. Ct. App. 2007)
State v. Johnson (Minn. Ct. App. 2002)
State v. Secrest (Minn. Ct. App. 1989)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

AMDAHL, Chief Justice.

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of three counts of criminal sexual conduct in the second degree, Minn.Stat. § 609.343 (1982). The charges were based on his having sexual contact with a 7-year-old girl on three separate occasions during a weekend when she was a guest in the residence that he shared with his girlfriend and her two children. The trial court used the Hernandez method in computing defendant’s criminal history score, see State v. Hernandez, 311 N.W.2d 478 (Minn. 1981), and Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines and Commentary II.B.101 (1982), which gave defendant criminal history scores of two for the first offense sentenced, three for the second, and four for the third. This resulted in concurrent sentences of 30 months stayed, 34 months executed, and 44 months executed. Rejecting defendant’s contentions on appeal, we hold (a) that the evidence of defendant’s guilt, which was strongly corroborated by evidence of similar sexual misconduct against other girls, was sufficient; (b) that the trial court did not err in refusing to permit defense counsel to cross-examine the mother of one of the victims about her having been sexually abused when she was a child; and (c) that the trial court, in sentencing defendant as it did, did not violate Minn.Stat. § 609.035 (1982) or the Hernandez rule of computing a defendant’s criminal history score for sentencing purposes. See State v. Moore, 340 N.W.2d 671 (Minn. 1983).

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.