State v. Benniefield
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HANSON, Justice.
Appellant was convicted of third-degree possession of a controlled substance within a school zone. He argues that punishing possession within a school zone more harshly than possession outside a school zone violates the equal protection guaranty of the Minnesota Constitution. Alternatively, he argues that a conviction of this crime requires proof that he either knew he was in a school zone or intended to commit the crime in a school zone. Because there is a rational basis to enhance the crime where possession occurs within a school zone, and the plain language of the…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- State v. RussellSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1991
- State v. DenbySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
- United States v. Ramon FaluCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1985
- State v. SorensonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1989
- State v. FlorineSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1975
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Deegan v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2006
- Carlton v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2012
- State v. CoxSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2011
- State v. Al-NaseerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2007
- State v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2012
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.