State v. Clabo

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that factor (3) was an “improper enhancement factor, since there were separate convictions for each victim”
• holding that factor (3) was an “improper enhance ment factor, since there we re separate c onvictions for each victim”
• holding that factor (3) was an “improper enhancement factor, since there were separate convictions for each victim”
• holding that “[t]he minor innuendos about another incident were harmless”
• holding separa te convictions with respect to each victim in a case precludes use of this aggra vating facto r
• noting that the State’s failure to elect offenses “is plain error”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).