State v. Boehl

14 Citing cases

  1. State v. Banks

    A11-293 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2012)

    The district court therefore did not err by concluding that Banks has two prior sequential convictions under Minn. Stat. § 609.1095, subd. 2. Appellant cites State v. Boehl, 697 N.W.2d 215 (Minn. App. 2005), review denied (Minn. Aug. 16, 2005), as "a useful example of how to read Minnesota's criminal-enhancement sentencing statutes."

  2. State v. Carlson

    No. A07-2144 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 10, 2009)   Cited 4 times

    In addition, a charged offense may be more severe than the Spreigl occurrences. See State v. Boehl, 697 N.W.2d 215, 220 (Minn.App. 2005) (affirming admission of Spreigl evidence to show "a pattern of opportunistic fondling of young girls . . . after establishing a relationship of trust with their mothers" even though charged offense was "more severe" than the Spreigl occurrences), review denied (Minn. Aug. 16, 2005).

  3. State v. Boehl

    726 N.W.2d 831 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that "[t]he district court possessed the inherent judicial authority to [e]mpanel a resentencing jury on remand from . . . reversal of respondent's enhanced sentence" and "[b]ecause the district court erred by failing to recognize that it possessed this inherent judicial authority, [ Boehl] reverse[d] and remand[ed] for the district court's discretionary determination of whether to exercise that authority"

    On appeal, we held that the district court's imposition of an upward durational departure violated the constitutional right to a jury trial under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), because it was based on judicial findings regarding the presence of aggravating factors defined in the patterned-sex-offender statute. State v. Boehl, 697 N.W.2d 215, 222 (Minn.App. 2005), review denied (Minn. Aug. 16, 2005).

  4. State v. King

    No. A04-1607 (Minn. Ct. App. Sep. 6, 2005)

    Accordingly, and because a defendant's failure to raise Apprendi in the district court does not waive his right to assert Blakely on direct appeal, appellant has not waived his constitutional claim, and the state's argument is without merit. Turning to the heart of appellant's argument, we recently addressed Blakely'seffect on a district court's upward durational departure under the patterned-sex-offender statute in State v. Boehl, 697 N.W.2d 215 (Minn.App. 2005). Under the statute, when a district court imposes a sentence for certain cases of criminal sexual conduct, it "`shall' impose a sentence that is not less than double the presumptive sentence but not more than the statutory maximum if the defendant meets the criteria of a patterned sex offender."

  5. State v. McFee

    No. A05-283 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 23, 2005)

    1 (2002) (providing that juvenile-delinquency proceedings shall be without a jury). In further support of his argument, appellant directs the court's attention to State v. Boehl, 697 N.W.2d 215 (Minn.App. 2005). In Boehl, the district court imposed a ten-year conditional-release term under Minn. Stat. § 609.109, subd. 7 (2004), after concluding that Boehl's prior juvenile adjudication for third-degree criminal sexual conduct was a qualifying offense under Minn. Stat § 609.346, subd. 5 (1996).

  6. State v. Tweed

    No. A23-1075 (Minn. Ct. App. Jul. 22, 2024)

    Minnesota courts have repeatedly recognized the relevance of Spreigl evidence in criminal-sexual-conduct cases. See State v. Boehl, 697 N.W.2d 215, 219 (Minn.App. 2005) ("In criminal sexual conduct cases . . . prior acts of sexual conduct are often relevant where the defendant disputes that the sexual conduct occurred or where the defendant asserts the victim is fabricating the allegations."), rev. denied (Minn. Aug. 16, 2005).

  7. State v. Neal

    No. A19-1239 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 10, 2020)

    "In criminal sexual conduct cases, particularly in child sex abuse prosecutions, prior acts of sexual conduct are often relevant . . . where the defendant asserts the victim is fabricating the allegations." State v. Boehl, 697 N.W.2d 215, 219 (Minn. App. 2005), review denied (Minn. Aug. 16, 2005). Neal's cousin's testimony has clear probative value in refuting the allegation that his daughter was lying.

  8. State v. Bandur

    No. A19-0160 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2019)

    This is contrary to caselaw, which provides that "[i]n criminal sexual conduct cases, particularly in child sex abuse prosecutions, prior acts of sexual conduct are often relevant where the defendant disputes that the sexual conduct occurred or where the defendant asserts the victim is fabricating the allegations." State v. Boehl, 697 N.W.2d 215, 219 (Minn. App. 2005), review denied (Minn. Aug. 16, 2005). Due to the "secrecy in which such acts take place, the vulnerability of the victims, the absence of physical proof of the crime . . . and a general lack of confidence in the ability of the jury to assess the credibility of child witnesses," prior bad acts or convictions are relevant to show a common scheme or plan, or that the act occurred.

  9. State v. Rogalla

    A11-2134 (Minn. Ct. App. Oct. 1, 2012)

    Given the secrecy in which such acts take place, the vulnerability of the victims, [and] the absence of physical proof of the crime . . . the prior convictions are relevant to show a common plan or scheme on the part of the defendant, i.e., to establish that the act occurred.State v. Boehl, 697 N.W.2d 215, 219-220 (Minn. App. 2005) (citations and quotation omitted) (no abuse of discretion in admission of Spreigl evidence "to show [the defendant's] intent, and his common scheme or plan" when the defendant "denied that the inappropriate sexual conduct occurred"). Here, appellant testified that he was "trying to understand why they want me to confess to something that I didn't do" and answered "No" when asked: (1) if the events testified to by N.B. and C.L. had occurred; (2) if he committed the offenses with which he was charged; (3) if he penetrated complainant in any way at any time; and (4) if he had sexual contact with her in any way at any time.

  10. State v. Black

    No. A06-2390 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2008)   Cited 1 times

    This court has held that evidence of past sexual misconduct need not be of the same type as the charged offense in order to be relevant. State v. Boehl, 697 N.W.2d 215, 219 (Minn.App. 2005), review denied (Minn. Aug. 16, 2005).