Legal Opinion

State v. Campbell

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided September 30, 2008No. A08-0218PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

MINGE, Judge.

Appellant State of Minnesota challenges a district court decision (a) finding Minn. Stat. § 609.2335, subd. 1(1) (2002), unconstitutionally vague as applied to respondent; and (b) dismissing charges against respondent for financial exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Respondent argues that if we conclude the statute is constitutional, we should apply the rule of lenity and construe the statute narrowly so as not to apply to respondent’s conduct. Because we conclude that the statute is constitutional and that application of the rule of lenity is not appropriate, we reverse…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. Kolender v. LawsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  3. Colten v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  4. Hoang Minh Ly v. NystromSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2000
  5. State v. Joon Kyu KimSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1987

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. In re Disciplinary Action Against FettSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2010
  2. Eric Sorenson v. Joanne SorensonCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2023
  3. In the Matter of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Special Permit No. 16868 (December 21, 2012) issued to Lynn RogersCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2015
  4. State v. HarlinCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2009
  5. Sorenson v. SorensonDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2022

3 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