Legal Opinion

In Re the Welfare of J.A.D.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided December 21, 1999No. C2-99-868PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

AMUNDSON, Judge

Appellant challenges the district court’s restitution order, arguing that a child victim’s parent is not entitled to restitution for expenses incurred on the child’s behalf. We affirm.

FACTS

In the fall of 1998, appellant J.A.D., a twelve-year old, pulled down his pants and exposed his penis to two children, a five-year-old male and a three-year-old female. J.AD. was charged with two counts of indecent exposure. In February 1999, J.A.D. pleaded guilty to one count indecent exposure in the presence of the three-year-old girl'.

The district court judge stayed adjudication for…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. State v. OlsonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986
  2. State v. TerpstraSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1996
  3. State v. HarwellCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1994
  4. State v. DendyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1994
  5. State v. EslerCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1996

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. State v. JonesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2004
  2. State of Minnesota, (A15-0984), (A15-0998) v. Chao Moua, (A15-0984), (A15-0998).Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2016
  3. People v. DennoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
  4. State of Minnesota v. Henry Albert Allison, Jr.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2024
  5. State of Minnesota v. Henry Albert Allison, Jr.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2024

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