§ 609.225

State v. Hall · 2019 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Johanson · 1984 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Hegna v. State · 1983 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Profit · 1982 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Engler · 1982 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Upton · 1981 1 citation

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of a charge of assault with a dangerous weapon, Minn. Stat. § 609.225, subd. 2 (1978), and was sentenced by the trial court to a maximum 5-year prison term. On this appeal from judgment of conviction, defendant contends that (1) his conviction should be reversed outright on the ground that the evidence of his guilt was legally insufficient, or (2) he should be given a new trial on the ground that the trial court committed prejudicial error in denying a defense motion to prohibit the prosecutor from using a 1971 conviction for third-degree murder to impeach defendant’s credibility as a witness. We affirm.

State v. Kittleson · 1981 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Ellert · 1981 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Spears v. State · 1980 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Kegg · 1980 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Spaulding · 1980 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Discher · 1980 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Lynch · 1980 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. MacK · 1980 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Seefeldt · 1980 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Anderson · 1980 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Meaney · 1980 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Sailor · 1980 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Benford · 1980 2 citations

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of criminal sexual conduct in the second degree, Minn. Stat. § 609.343(a, c, d) (1978), 1 and aggravated assault, Minn. Stat. § 609.225, subd. 2 (1978). 2 The trial court sentenced defendant to a limited term of 1 year and 1 day to 5 years (rather than the 15-year maximum permitted by statute) for the sex conviction. The state’s evidence at trial revealed that defendant, age 24, fondled an 11-year-old girl who had run away from home and had agreed to go for an automobile ride with him. During the encounter, defendant was armed with a loaded gun, which he used in a threatening manner. On this appeal from judgment of conviction defendant contends (1) that both his convictions should be reversed on the ground of insufficient evidence or (2) that at least the aggravated assault conviction should be reversed on the ground that the sex conviction and the assault conviction are the same offense for double jeopardy purposes and that since they were based on the same conduct only one of the two may stand. We affirm.

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of criminal sexual conduct in the second degree, Minn. Stat. § 609.343(a, c, d) (1978), 1 and aggravated assault, Minn. Stat. § 609.225, subd. 2 (1978). 2 The trial court sentenced defendant to a limited term of 1 year and 1 day to 5 years (rather than the 15-year maximum permitted by statute) for the sex conviction. The state’s evidence at trial revealed that defendant, age 24, fondled an 11-year-old girl who had run away from home and had agreed to go for an automobile ride with him. During the encounter, defendant was armed with a loaded gun, which he used in a threatening manner. On this appeal from judgment of conviction defendant contends (1) that both his convictions should be reversed on the ground of insufficient evidence or (2) that at least the aggravated assault conviction should be reversed on the ground that the sex conviction and the assault conviction are the same offense for double jeopardy purposes and that since they were based on the same conduct only one of the two may stand. We affirm.

State v. Mings · 1980 1 citation

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury on charges of aggravated assault, Minn. Stat. § 609.225, subd. 2 (1978) (assault with a dangerous weapon), and disorderly conduct, Minn. Stat. § 609.72(1) (1978). The trial court stayed imposition of sentence, placing defendant on probation for 5 years on the condition that defendant spend 120 days in jail, being eligible for work release after serving 30 days. Defendant, who has been released pending this appeal from judgment of conviction, contends that his aggravated assault conviction should be reversed outright on the ground that the evidence of his guilt was legally insufficient. Alternatively, he contends that he should at least be given a new trial on the ground of jury misconduct. We affirm.

State v. King · 1979 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Hamilton · 1979 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Hofmaster · 1979 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Halvorson · 1993 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Skramstad · 1988 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Jurgens · 1988 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

Johnson v. State · 1988 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Ware v. State · 1987 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Stanifer · 1986 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Turcotte · 1984 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.