 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| State v. Brown, A06-1364,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, November 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant's conviction of gross misdemeanor domestic assault was affirmed because evidence admitted by district court of appellant's prior domestic assault conviction came within scope of Minn. Stat. § 634.20 and was not unfairly prejudicial to defense. Failure to give limiting instruction regarding use of relationship evidence was not plain error.
|
|||||
| State v. Hott, A06-2188,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, November 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was convicted of theft of a motor vehicle, he was convicted of a second offense before he was sentenced in the first case. The district court did not err by sentencing him to 20 months in prison for the first offense and assigning a criminal-history point based on the second offense under Minn. Sent. Guidelines II.B.1.
|
|||||
| State v. Sybrant, A06-1599,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, November 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the aggravated-forgery statute, Minn. Stat. § 609.625, subd. 3, was more specific than the theft-by-swindle statute, Minn. Stat. § 609.52, subd. 2(4), and there was no legislative intent to the contrary, it was proper for defendant, who attempted to purchase merchandise with a counterfeit $ 100 bill, to be prosecuted for the forgery crime.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
