In Re the Welfare of J.A.D.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
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
- State v. OlsonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986
- State v. TerpstraSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1996
- State v. HarwellCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1994
- State v. DendyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1994
- State v. EslerCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1996
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- State v. JonesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2004
- State of Minnesota, (A15-0984), (A15-0998) v. Chao Moua, (A15-0984), (A15-0998).Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2016
- People v. DennoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- State of Minnesota v. Henry Albert Allison, Jr.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2024
- State of Minnesota v. Henry Albert Allison, Jr.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2024
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.