Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Colvin

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided June 13, 2002No. C4-00-1365Published

1DissentRussell A. Anderson, Justice

I respectfully dissent. I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that entry into a home with intent to violate an order for protection (OFP) is the equivalent of entry into a home with intent to trespass. I also disagree with the majority’s characterization of the district court’s written findings of fact. By improperly focusing on two short phrases in the district court’s findings, the court not only ignores the fundamental finding of the court that the felony underlying the burglary was violation of the OFP and not a mere trespass, but fails to appreciate the significant difference between…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State v. CrowsbreastSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2001
  2. State v. CrosbySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1967
  3. State v. LarsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
  4. State v. WitteSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1968
  5. State v. MillsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1971

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API