Friday, 6 November 2015

Golden Rules to Determine your Criminal Defense Attorney is Good or Not


If you are someone who has been charged for a crime like homicide, violent crime, assault, sex crime, theft crime, terrorist threats, forgery, perjury, arson etc and have hired a criminal defense attorney for the same, then it is important to determine and be sure that he/she is good at what he/she does and can truly help you out. In order to determine if your criminal defense attorney is good or not, there are certain golden rules to follow. The following are the ones to remember.


  • The Attorney must be Eager to Know your Background and Life Situation in Detail



A good defense attorney is one who makes efforts and shows eagerness to know about your life situation and background.  This means that he is not just financially but also personally involved in your case and wants you to get out of trouble.

  •  He Must Truly be Interested in Knowing the Truth to Suggest the best Solutions



Good criminal defense attorneys like eric thole are genuinely interested in knowing the truth so that he can suggest the best way for you to get out of trouble.  He must show interest in knowing whether you committed the crime or not.

  • He Should Maintain your Privacy



Another rule which can help you determine whether your criminal defense attorney is good or not is to check whether he tries to maintain your privacy or not. He must do all to safeguard the facts you have revealed to him.


If your criminal defense lawyer satisfies these rules, then he is surely a keeper. If not, then you can hire Eric thole attorney at law by logging on to www.tholelaw.com. Eric Thole is the best there is and also at a pocket friendly price.


The role of a Criminal Defense Attorney like Eric Thole in current times

Well, most of us do not have a great image of defense attorneys because we think that they defend the guilty criminals.  However, these attorneys like Eric Thole play a very important role in the legal systems, especially in the current times when many people are charged wrongly and are not able to defend their ownselves. Defense attorneys make sure that those who have been charged with homicide, sex crimes, violent crimes, forgery, perjury, arson, drug crimes, reckless driving, assaults and other such activities can reach justice. The following will further explain the role of a criminal defense attorney in current times.


Criminal Defense attorneys protect the rights of the accused:

·         Criminal Defense attorneys make sure that the accused are treated fairly by the court of law of their respective country and that their rights are protected.
·         Some of the rights which every accused must be given include right to a trial, right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, right to remain silent, right to legal counsel and right to a public speedy trial.

Criminal Defense attorneys protect the innocent:

·         Criminal defense attorneys also play the role of defending innocent people. If it wasn’t for such lawyers, all innocent people charged with crimes would be serving time in prison.
·         These attorneys help innocent individuals prove that it wasn’t them who committed the crime by providing proof and evidence of the same.

·         They use their experience, knowledge and education to find out the truth and get their client released from wrong charges.

There are plenty of good Criminal defense lawyers out there who can help you come out of the clutches of law but it is important to hire only an experienced one. You can visit www.tholelaw.com to avail the impeccable services of Eric thole attorney at law.


Friday, 9 October 2015

How to prepare for your first meeting with a criminal defense attorney - Eric Thole

If you have been acquitted or charged with a crime, then you will need to hire a criminal defense attorney. For this, you will have to meet a few attorneys or lawyers to be able to take a better decision about which one to hire. You must always go in prepared when meeting a criminal defense attorney for the first time so that both of you can understand one another. Irrespective of what crime you may have been charged for-homicide, forgery, theft crime, drug crime, sex crimes or any other crime, your preparation must remain the same. The following are some ways to prepare for your first meeting with a criminal defense attorney.


·         Be prepared to answer questions-you will be required to answer certain questions about the case, charges and crime. You must be prepared to answer them.

·         Have some questions to ask-make sure you have a list of questions prepared to be asked from the criminal defense attorney to make sure he is the right one for you.

·         Take important documents with you-you will need to carry some important documents which may prove as evidence including letters, photos, emails, call records etc. These documents can help make your case strong and should be present with your attorney.

·         Be on time-make sure you reach the attorney’s office before the time of the appointment as being late may cut from your designated time.

·         Be honest-it is best to be honest with your attorney and hence it is important not to hold back any crucial information.


There are many good defense attorneys that you can hire and one of them is Eric Thole attorney at law. To reach Eric thole, you can log on to www.tholelaw.com.

Tips and suggestions to select the best criminal defense attorney - Eric Thole

If you have been charged or acquitted for any criminal offense including homicide, sex crime, theft crime, violent crime, drug crime, forgery, perjury, arson or a white collar crime, then it is natural and important for you to hire the best criminal defense attorney. Only the best one can help you either get out of the case or reduce the seriousness of the punishment. The following are the top tips and suggestions that you can follow to select the best criminal defense attorney.

·         Do your research- it is important to spend time on doing your research to find the attorney and the best way to do so is either on the internet or by asking someone who knows about attorneys in your city/country. Pick the best ones and then select the one which you think is most suitable for you.

·         Consider your budget- It is important to know that some of the best criminal defense attorneys charge very high fees and hence you must consider your budget before you hire one. Always ask the rate before going ahead and make sure there are no hidden costs.

·         Meet the attorney in person- Don’t be fooled by slogans and attractive advertisements and make sure you go and meet the attorney in person. Discuss your case and see if you feel comfortable with the lawyer.  There is nothing wrong with meeting a few before hiring one.

·         Check for experience and expertise- It is better to hire one who has rich experience and extensive expertise like Eric Thole as it is experience which may help you win the case or get charges to be dropped.


If you are looking for a criminal defense attorney, you can consider Eric Thole attorney at law and visit the website www.tholelaw.com .

Thursday, 8 October 2015

Reasons for promptly hiring a criminal defense attorney

Any individual who has been charged with or has been arrested for committing a certain crime will surely need help of an attorney or lawyer since there is no other way to get out of the situation. But at the same time, it is also important to hire a criminal defense attorney at the soonest possible.  Whether it is a small crime like assault, forgery, arson or shoplifting or a major crime like rape, homicide or any other violent crime, hiring a legal aid promptly can make matters easier and more in control. The following are the top reasons for quickly hiring a lawyer in the situation of being arrested or charged with crime.

  • ·         To avoid any formal charges from being filed


One of the major benefits of hiring a criminal defense attorney like Eric Thole as soon as possible is that doing so can help you avoid any kind of formal legal charges from being filed against you. This is especially true if you have been wrongfully charged with the crime since the attorney can negotiate a dismissal before any charges are made. It is important to take advantage of the time lag between casual and formal charges. Even if charges have already been filed, it is important to find legal representation right away to better your choices for a positive outcome.
  • ·         High chances of being let off in the initial phases of case


It is important to know that the chances of being let off or the charges being dropped off are maximum during the initial phases and this is another reason why you must quickly call an attorney and book him for your case. Plea bargaining and any other discussions regarding lessening or dropping charges are more likely to happen during the first few hours/days.

  • ·         Best to have an experienced spokesperson from the beginning


An experienced legal aid will guide you on what your stand or response should be before you give out any information that you must not. This is why it is vital that you hire a criminal defense attorney right at the beginning of the case. The attorney can prove to be an experienced and expert spokesperson who will handle everything on your behalf right from the beginning of the case. This too can prove beneficial for you.

  • ·         Gives more time for the attorney to prepare


The quicker you hire the attorney, the more time will he/she have to prepare a plea or case for you. Thus hiring a lawyer quickly can improve your chances of being released, charges being dropped or your punishment to be lessened.

If you are someone who is looking for a criminal defense lawyer, then you can log on to www.tholelaw.com and utilize the services of Eric Thole attorney at law. He is an experienced attorney with the expertise to handle and win all kinds of criminal and other cases on your behalf.  The quicker you contact him, the better will it be for you.


How hiring a criminal defense attorney prove useful for you

Life can often take unexpected turns and may land us in situations from where we may find it difficult to find an exit. One bad decision or a misjudgment in a pressure situation can land us in the nets of crime and may turn our life around. But in such a situation, only a qualified and experienced attorney like Eric Thole may be able to help us. A criminal defense attorney or a good law firm can help us find out a way and especially in the case when we are charged on the basis of false allegations for assault with deadly weapon, homicide, assault, reckless driving and other such crimes. The following are a few ways in which hiring a criminal defense attorney can prove useful.


·         Clearing off the case with minimum damage- By hiring a criminal defense lawyer, you can get out of the case with minimum impact or damage. Whether it is the case of forgery, perjury, arson, shoplifting or any violent crime, an attorney who has good knowledge of state laws and rich experience may prevent you from getting into any serious trouble.  They can save you from paying huge amount of taxes and may settle the case at a light fee.

·         Can speed up matters-Once you land in a crime, then it can take forever for you to get out of the case or reach the court. But by hiring a good attorney, you can easily speed up matters for yourself. An experienced attorney helps you complete the paperwork and formalities fast and may help you reach the court’s decision in the shortest possible time frame.

·         Can help you give a strong defense-In a criminal case, a strong defense or argument can make all the difference and this is what a criminal defense attorney can promise you. Hire one who has fought a similar case before so as to utilize his/her expertise, skills and experience.  A single good idea can help you get out of the charges of theft crimes, sex crimes or other such crimes easily and may just save your life

·         Can provide us with life saving advice-criminal attorneys and other lawyers are experts at finding solutions in difficulty situations and can give us advice that may just turn out to be life saving for us. Being in communication with them can help us conduct ourselves properly while the case is still on.

There are plenty of criminal defense attorneys out there but one must always be careful about hiring one which has a good reputation and has won cases successfully in the past. Eric Thole attorney at law is one of the best criminal defense law firms and is one which can help you get past a variety of crime situations. It is important to read reviews consult friends and search the internet before hiring any attorney or lawyer as this very decision can make all the difference in winning and losing the case.

Monday, 14 September 2015

What Can You Expect From Eric Thole Attorney At Law?

Eric Thole
When it comes to fighting a criminal case, everyone is looking forward to wind up those criminal charges as soon as possible and this is where Eric Thole Attorney at law comes into picture. Criminal law is not easy to grasp and this is why most of the people prefer hiring a capable criminal defense lawyer to help them get out of this legal tangle as soon as possible. The lawyer would educate the clients about the laws regarding to drug crimes, forgery and even violent crime along with explaining them the legal actions that can be taken to save them.

Book an appointment:- www.tholelaw.com


Eric Thole begins with questioning the witnesses and gathering all possible evidences so that all these facts could be later used to prove the client innocent. Negotiating with the prosecutors is next important task as it could lead to reducing the penalties and even the sentence period. A capable defense lawyer would work on out of the court settlement and bargains to ensure that the client is set free without investing in much time and money. Over here at Eric Thole Law firm, all possible options are explained so that one can be prepared for all kinds of legal actions in advance. 

Book an appointment:- www.tholelaw.com

How Can A Criminal Defense Lawyer Help You?

Eric Thole
In case one is expecting prison time or a hefty penalty out of the verdict, hiring a reputable and experienced criminal defense lawyer becomes a must. If in a situation where you feel that you would not be able to represent your case in the court hiring Attorney Eric Thole comes as an intelligent option.

It is to be comprehended that each criminal case is different and one needs to be trained enough to represent client’s case so that the arguments and evidences put forth to negate the crime.

Book an appointment:- www.tholelaw.com

The core job of a criminal defense lawyer is to help prosecutor negotiate a deal whether it is a white collar crime or a forgery. The lawyer is going to navigate the case and come out with such rules and regulations that the charges against you are reduced or dismissed.

Book an appointment:- www.tholelaw.com


The lawyer is going to work with the witnesses and try and extract maxim information so that enough evidences are obtained to represent your case. To sum this up, it gets vital to have a criminal defense lawyer by your side in a criminal case as with this the chances of you coming out clean increase as he won’t let prosecutor succeeded. 

Friday, 14 August 2015

How important is it to know your civil rights

The propagation and abundance of Internet sex crimes have changes so swiftly that it's created an utterly new mode of law enforcement. The web has given offenders access to children of all that was not possible until lately. The development and expanded access to technology, for example, texting, email and web cams have made an uncommon open door for direct access to youngsters. Obviously, it has become easy for predators for manipulating teenagers and sometimes adults in trapping them into falling prey to online crimes. The conceivable outcomes of being accused of Internet sex crimes are all around.

Book an appointment:- www.tholelaw.com

In today’s time, if you are falsely charged with Sex crimes, including rape and Internet sex crimes, then it can have serious implications on your life and career. Attorneys like Eric Thole at law can help you find solutions to such life-ruining issues. This would truly be like the blessing in disguise. There are many cases where might be accused Theft crimes, including burglary, robbery and shoplifting by someone who is jealous or has a vendetta to be taken care of.

You should be aware of your civil rights and should know how to protect your rights during a criminal investigation. So, if you have been accused of internet sex crime, then you should not wait more and should straight away contact an effective attorney before falling in the trap of being formally charged. There are times when even police officers do not have the credible cause for issuing a warrant.

Book an appointment:- www.tholelaw.com




HOW THE GAME CHANGES WITH THE RIGHT CRIME ATTORNEYS

Eric Thole
The world has changed tremendously with the past ten years witnessing a drastic growth in the number of internet users. There is no doubt that if by any chance someone makes you fall prey to false allegations about online sex crime, then you are in deep trouble. If you have been charged with an online sex crime, such as possession of child pornography or online solicitation of a minor, then you are facings serious, life-changing criminal charges.

It is important to know that you have some civil rights to protect your version of what happened. You can get help from a professional attorney who knows his or her job well. For example, you can hire a specialist like the professionals from the Thole Law firm in Stillwaters, who offers effective legal defense against Internet sex crimes for individuals of Washington County.

Book an appointment:- www.tholelaw.com

If you are charged, then things often take up painful turns and you never know what lies ahead. It is always better to be on the safer side. A good and experienced attorney would guide you effectively and often act as a buffer during criminal investigations, to protect our clients' constitutional rights and limit the prosecution's ability to build their cases. Your legal representative can help in reducing the charges brought against you and can also be able to prevent the charges altogether if possible.

If you are going through something similar, contact the right people, right away. Located in Stillwater, the Thole Law firm provides individuals throughout Washington County with strong, effective legal defense against Internet sex crimes.

Book an appointment:- www.tholelaw.com


Friday, 17 July 2015

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
C2-97-1854

State of Minnesota,Respondent,

vs.

Jeremy John Janshen,
Appellant.

Filed June 2, 1998
Affirmed
Davies, Judge

Washington County District CourtFile No. K597483

Hubert H. Humphrey III, Attorney General, 1400 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota St., St. Paul, MN 55101 (for respondent)

Richard D. Hodsdon, Acting Washington County Attorney, Eric C. Thole, Assistant County Attorney, Washington County Government Center, 14900 61st St. N., Stillwater, MN 55082 (for respondent)

Steven P. Russett, Assistant State Public Defender, 875 Summit Ave., Room 371, St. Paul, MN 55105 (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Crippen, Presiding Judge, Davies, Judge, and Harten, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
DAVIES, Judge
Appellant challenges the sufficiency of evidence offered to support his conviction of first-degree arson. We affirm.

FACTS
In October 1997, fire destroyed Phillip Johnson's mobile home. After the fire, investigators discovered that several guns were missing from the home. Appellant Jeremy John Janshen was charged with first-degree arson in connection with the blaze. The state's evidence included the following testimony:
(1) Antonio Rice testified that appellant visited him at his home a few hours before the fire and asked him if he wanted to "jack" (burglarize) some nearby homes. Rice declined, and appellant left. The next day, Rice saw appellant at Chris Armstrong's home, where appellant boasted about having several stolen guns to sell. The following weekend, appellant showed Rice and Armstrong an old British rifle he said he had stolen. Appellant also admitted burning down Johnson's home by turning on the gas.

(2) Cassandra Schmeig testified that appellant told her that he had "been doing some bad things lately * * * like fires and stuff." Appellant told Schmeig that he was selling some guns, but would not tell her where he obtained them.

(3) Vincent Killen and Christeen Rewey testified that appellant told them he had stolen guns from Johnson's home and burned it down by turning on the gas and lighting a match because his accomplice had not worn gloves and might have left fingerprints.

The jury found appellant guilty of first-degree arson. He was sentenced to six years and two months in prison. This appeal followed.

D E C I S I O N
Appellant argues that the state failed to corroborate his self-incriminating admissions. See Minn. Stat. § 634.03 (1996) (confession is insufficient to warrant conviction without evidence that charged offense has been committed); State v. McLarne, 128 Minn. 163, 167-69, 150 N.W. 787, 789 (1915) (reversing arson conviction when only evidence of defendant's guilt was his uncorroborated admission); see also State v. Sellers, 507 N.W.2d 235, 235-36 (Minn. 1993) (vacating conviction of keeping ferrets without permit when defendant's uncorroborated self-incriminating statements to animal control officers and "ambiguous" refusal to consent to search of home provided only evidence of guilt).
First-degree arson involves (1) the intentional destruction, (2) by means of fire or explosives, (3) of "any building that is used as a dwelling." Minn. Stat. § 609.561, subd. 1 (1996). The state must substantiate appellant's admissions "`by independent evidence of attending facts or circumstances from which the jury may infer the trustworthiness of the [admission].'" In re Welfare of M.D.S., 345 N.W.2d 723, 735 (Minn. 1984) (quoting Smoot v. United States, 312 F.2d 881, 885 (D.C. Cir. 1962)). The state is not required, however, to independently corroborate each element of the charged offense. Id.
In this case, Antonio Rice's testimony adequately corroborated appellant's repeated admissions that he intentionally set fire to Johnson's home. Rice saw appellant near the scene of the fire shortly before it was discovered and then, less than a week later, saw appellant holding a rifle that resembled one stolen from Johnson's home. Rice's testimony allowed the jury to infer, from appellant's admissions, that appellant set the fire.
An "admission" is, after all, a statement, direct or implied, of facts tending to establish guilt. It does not necessarily constitute an acknowledgement of guilt but of facts and circumstances, which, if taken in connection with proof of other facts, may permit an inference of guilt.

State v. Weber, 272 Minn. 243, 254, 137 N.W.2d 527, 535 (1965).
Appellant's admissions to Killen and Rewey also support the jury's inference that he acted with the requisite intent. See State v. Koskela, 536 N.W.2d 625, 629 (Minn. 1995) (affirming felony murder conviction of defendant whose self-incriminating admissions provided evidence of necessary intent).
Appellant argues that, if there is any evidence corroborating his admissions, it is circumstantial. But because the criminal act of arson, if successful, destroys most tangible evidence, circumstantial evidence frequently provides the only basis for an arson conviction. State v. Jacobson, 326 N.W.2d 663, 665 (Minn. 1982). Here, the circumstantial evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient for the jury to convict appellant. See State v. Webb, 440 N.W.2d 426, 430 (Minn. 1989) (when sufficiency of evidence is challenged, appellate court must
determine whether evidence, viewed in light most favorable to conviction, supports jury verdict).
Affirmed.

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
C8-99-48

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Willis J. Beauvais,
Appellant.


Filed July 27, 1999
Affirmed
Schumacher, Judge

Washington County District Court
File No. K8-98-2268

Mike Hatch, Attorney General, 1400 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota St., St. Paul, MN 55101; and

Doug Johnson, Washington County Attorney, Eric C. Thole, Assistant County Attorney, Washington County Government Center, 14949 62nd Street North, Stillwater, MN 55082 (for respondent)

John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Theodora Gaitas, Assistant State Public Defender, 2829 University Ave. Southeast, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55414 (for appellant)


Considered and decided by Willis, Presiding Judge, Schumacher, Judge, and Harten, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N
SCHUMACHER, Judge
Appellant Willis J. Beauvais challenges his conviction for third-degree burglary, claiming the evidence of intent is insufficient on the element of intent. We affirm.

FACTS
At approximately 12:30 a.m. on May 5, 1998, Beauvais was apprehended in a shed at the Hudson Road Animal Hospital in Woodbury after police responded to a silent alarm. At Beauvais's court trial, arresting officer Jason Posel testified that when he approached the shed he heard noises. A wall of the shed had been pried apart, according to Posel, and on the other side of the shed there was a six-inch hole. Officer Posel also testified that he discovered a weed trimmer, some tubing, and a hammer on the ground outside the shed.
A veterinarian associated with the hospital, Dr. Michael Westfall, testified that on the day of the burglary, the hospital caretaker had opened the shed while working, but the shed was intact at 5:00 p.m. when he walked around it. In regard to the items found outside of the shed, Dr. Westfall identified the tubing and weed trimmer as belonging to the hospital and stated that the weed trimmer was normally stored inside the shed on a hook or braced in between two wall panels.
Beauvais testified that he did not know how he got into the shed, but he wanted only to sleep there for the night because he had been dropped off on the road after a dispute with two drinking companions. He testified that the hospital was about 60 miles from his Maple Plain residence.
The trial court found Beauvais guilty of third-degree burglary under Minn. Stat. § 609.582, subd. 3 (1996) and imposed a 30-month sentence based on Beauvais's significant criminal history. On appeal, Beauvais claims the evidence was insufficient to show he intended to commit burglary.

D E C I S I O N
Where sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal, our review is limited to determining whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, is sufficient to permit the jurors to have reached a guilty verdict. State v. Spaeth, 552 N.W.2d 187, 192 (Minn. 1996); State v. Webb, 440 N.W.2d 426, 430 (Minn. 1989). The appellate court must assume the jury believed the evidence supporting the conviction and disbelieved contradictory evidence favoring the defendant. Dale v. State, 535 N.W.2d 619, 623 (Minn. 1995). In a case tried to the court, the findings are given the same weight as a jury verdict. State v. Bouwman, 354 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn. 1984).
In proving intent to commit burglary, the state must show that the defendant "intended to commit some independent crime other than trespass after illegal entry into the building." State v. Ring, 554 N.W.2d 758, 760 (Minn. App. 1996) (citation omitted), review denied (Minn. Jan. 21, 1997).

[T]he proof of intent to commit a crime in connection with proof of burglary is always one that must rest on a permissible inference from the facts proved.
State v. Crosby, 277 Minn. 22, 25, 151 N.W.2d 297, 300 (1967). Generally, those facts include "the time of entry, the nature of the building and its contents, any things which defendant may have had with him and all the other evidence in the case." State v. Johnson, 417 N.W.2d 143, 146 (Minn. App. 1987) (quoting 10 Minnesota Practice CRIMJIG 17.07 (1985)).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's decision, we conclude the evidence is sufficient to prove that Beauvais intended to commit third-degree burglary. He entered the shed late at night and damaged it in several places. The noises emanating from the shed upon police arrival contradicted Beauvais's claim that he was merely sleeping there. The location of the weed trimmer, found outside the shed on the ground but within arm's reach of the shed, also suggests criminal intent. Although Beauvais had an innocent explanation for his actions, the court, as fact-finder, was not obliged to believe his story. State v. Ostrem, 535 N.W.2d 916, 923 (Minn. 1995). The record supports a finding that Beauvais intended to commit burglary when he entered the shed. See Ring, 554 N.W.2d at 760 (circumstantial evidence sufficient to sustain conviction for attempted first-degree burglary); Johnson, 417 N.W.2d at 146 (evidence sufficient to support second-degree burglary conviction where defendant entered drug store with force late at night, disturbed property inside, and was arrested with items on his person that could have been from store); State v. Roehl, 409 N.W.2d 44, 47 (Minn. App. 1987) (evidence sufficient to support third-degree burglary conviction where defendant forced entry into business after hours late at night and fled after being found inside building).
Affirmed.

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
CX-97-1441

State of Minnesota,Appellant,

vs.

Charles Maurice Bugg,
Respondent.

Filed March 3, 1998
Reversed and Remanded
Kalitowski, Judge

Washington County District CourtFile No. K0965130

Hubert H. Humphrey III, Attorney General, 1400 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101; and

Richard M. Arney, Washington County Attorney, Eric C. Thole, Assistant County Attorney, Washington County Government Center, 14900 61st Street North, Stillwater, MN 55082 (for appellant)

Louis E. Torinus, 106 S. Main, P.O. Box 142, Stillwater, MN 55082 (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Peterson, Presiding Judge, Kalitowski, Judge, and Short, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
KALITOWSKI, Judge
The state challenges the district court's grant of judgment of acquittal following a jury verdict finding respondent Charles Maurice Bugg guilty of aggravated robbery. We reverse and remand for a reinstatement of the jury's verdict and sentencing.

D E C I S I O N
On October 12, 1996, respondent Charles Maurice Bugg grabbed the victim's purse as she was getting into her car after shopping. The victim did not let go of her purse, and respondent pulled the victim to the ground and dragged her for six or eight feet. When the victim let go of her purse, respondent ran off, dropping the purse along the way. At respondent's trial, the victim testified that she: (1) had scrapes on her elbows; (2) injured her right hip; (3) has continuing pain in her right shoulder; and (4) continues to have limited use of one hand.
The jury convicted respondent of aggravated robbery and the lesser included offenses of simple robbery and theft from a person. At sentencing, the district court sua sponte issued a judgment of acquittal for aggravated robbery stating: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support an aggravated robbery conviction because the crime was not more serious than a typical simple robbery; and (2) it had erred in giving the aggravated robbery instruction. Respondent did not make a motion for judgment of acquittal at any time during or after the trial, nor did he make a motion for a new trial.
"[A] motion of acquittal must be granted when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, is such that a reasonably minded jurymust have a reasonable doubt as to the existence of any of the essential elements of the crime charged."

United States v. Frol, 518 F.2d 1134, 1137 (8th Cir. 1975) (quoting United States v. Stephenson, 474 F.2d 1353, 1355 (5th Cir. 1973)).
In passing upon the defendant's post-trial motion for judgment of acquittal notwithstanding the jury's verdict, it was not the prerogative of the district court to resolve conflicts in the testimony, or to pass upon the credibility of witnesses or the weight to be given their testimony; those were jury functions; and the district court was not at liberty to set aside the verdict of the jury simply because the trial judge may have thought that the jury reached the wrong result. The district court was required, and we are required, to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, and to give the government the benefit of all favorable inferences reasonably to be drawn from the evidence. And if the verdict of the jury was sustained by substantial evidence, it should not have been set aside by the district court on factual grounds.

United States v. Hemphill, 544 F.2d 341, 344 (8th Cir. 1976).
Where there is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, our review on appeal is limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.

State v. Webb, 440 N.W.2d 426, 430 (Minn. 1989).
Minn. Stat. § 609.245, subd. 1 (1996), defines "aggravated robbery" in the first degree:
Whoever, while committing a robbery, is armed with a dangerous weapon or any article used or fashioned in a manner to lead the victim to reasonably believe it to be a dangerous weapon, or inflicts bodily harm upon another * * *.

(Emphasis added.) "Bodily harm," as used in the definition of "aggravated robbery," means: "physical pain or injury, illness, or any impairment of physical condition." Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 7 (1996).
This court has held that the aggravated robbery and simple robbery statutes do not impermissibly overlap, because they are "clear and describe different behavior." State v. Burrell, 506 N.W.2d 34, 37 (Minn. App. 1993), review denied (Minn. Oct. 19, 1993). The aggravated robbery statute requires that the victim be subjected to pain or injury. Id. Simple robbery, on the other hand, only requires mere force. Id.
In order to elevate a simple robbery to aggravated robbery, the statute requires only that, while committing a robbery, the defendant either be armed with a dangerous weapon or inflict bodily harm.

State v. Kvale, 302 N.W.2d 650, 653 (Minn. 1981).
In State v. Johnson, 277 Minn. 230, 237, 152 N.W.2d 768, 773 (1967), the supreme court found evidence of bodily harm sufficient to support an aggravated robbery conviction where the defendant: (1) took the victim's arm and either pushed or pulled him out of the car; (2) took the victim's wallet out of his pocket and cash out of his front shirt and pants pockets; (3) hit him in the chest causing his glasses to fall; and (4) bruised the victim's hip. Id. at 232, 152 N.W.2d 770. Relying on Johnson, this court found that a defendant's conduct in knocking the victim to the ground and dragging her into an alley while taking her jewelry was sufficient to support an aggravated robbery conviction. State v. Perez, 404 N.W.2d 834, 840 (Minn. App. 1987), review denied (Minn. May 20, 1987).
Further, the district court's reliance on State v. Kimmons, 502 N.W.2d 391 (Minn. App. 1993), review denied (Minn. Aug. 16, 1993), is misplaced. Although the defendant in Kimmons was convicted of simple robbery, there is no indication that the defendant was charged with aggravated robbery and the issue of whether his conduct constituted aggravated robbery was neither presented to, nor addressed by, this court. Id. at 393.
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the conviction, we conclude the evidence was sufficient to permit the jurors to convict respondent of aggravated robbery. The aggravated robbery instruction properly required a finding of bodily harm, and the victim's testimony provided evidence of bodily harm. Further, the jury's finding that respondent's conduct constituted aggravated robbery is consistent with both Perez and Johnson.
The district court's stated disagreement with the prosecutor's charge is not a proper basis for granting a judgment of acquittal when the jury's verdict was supported by sufficient evidence.
Under established separation of powers rules, absent evidence of selective or discriminatory prosecutorial intent, or an abuse of prosecutorial discretion, the judiciary is powerless to interfere with the prosecutor's charging authority.

State v. Krotzer, 548 N.W.2d 252, 254 (Minn. 1996).
Finally, because the state did not raise the issue on appeal, we do not address whether the district court erred procedurally by granting the motion for judgment of acquittal sua sponte after the jury's verdict and after the specified time period for such a motion to be raised.
Reversed and remanded.

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
C9-99-2021
State of Minnesota,
Appellant,
vs.
Signe Elissee Pearson,
Respondent.

Filed May 2, 2000Reverse and remand; motion granted
Peterson, Judge

Washington County District Court
File No. K998416
Mike Hatch, Attorney General, 525 Park Street, Suite 500, St. Paul, MN 55103; and
Doug Johnson, Washington County Attorney, Eric C. Thole, Assistant County Attorney, 14900 61st Street North, P.O. Box 6, Stillwater, MN 55082-0006 (for appellant)
Michael F. Cromett, McMahon & Cromett Criminal Defense, PLLP, 2499 Rice Street, Suite 260, Roseville, MN 55113-3724 (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Peterson, Presiding Judge, Schumacher, Judge, and Anderson, Judge.

S Y L L A B U S

1. A district court may stay adjudication of a felony-theft charge only to avoid an injustice resulting from the prosecutor's clear abuse of discretion in the exercise of the charging function.
2. A restorative justice program does not have authority under Minn. Stat. § 611A.775 (1998) to assign a sanction for a criminal offense that would be an improper sentence if imposed by the district court.
3. When sentencing a defendant who has participated in a restorative justice program under Minn. Stat. § 611A.775, the district court is not required to impose a sanction assigned in the restorative justice program.

O P I N I O N

PETERSON, Judge
Appellant State of Minnesota argues that the district court erred by staying adjudication of felony theft charges against respondent Signe Elissee Pearson. Respondent moves to strike a portion of appellant's brief and appendix. We reverse and remand, and grant respondent's motion to strike.

FACTS

Pearson was charged by complaint with one count each of felony theft by wrongfully obtaining public assistance and felony theft by wrongfully obtaining food stamps in violation of Minn. Stat. §§ 256.98, subd. 1, 393.07, subd. 10(c)(1), 609.52, subd. 3(2)-(3) (1994). The complaint alleged the following facts: from May 1995 through February 1996, Pearson received $4,080 in aid to families with dependent children (AFDC) and $2,431 in food stamps from Washington County; Pearson was working 40 hours per week but stated in her application for assistance that she was earning no income; and if Pearson had disclosed her employment, she would not have received any AFDC or food stamps.
Pearson pleaded guilty to felony theft by wrongfully obtaining public assistance. She admitted the allegations in the complaint and also admitted that she knew she was supposed to disclose any employment or income to Washington County when applying for or receiving public assistance or food stamps. Pursuant to the parties' agreement, the district court referred the case to the Washington County circle sentencing process for a sentencing recommendation.
The sentencing circle met four or five times regarding Pearson's case. Participants included Pearson, her husband, the district court, and community members. The circle recommended a stay of adjudication of the charges against Pearson and that Pearson be required to pay restitution, obtain credit counseling and financial management help, perform community volunteer work, and participate in support/follow-up circles.
At the sentencing hearing, the county attorney stated that his office had not received notice of any of the circle meetings. He also stated that Washington County Community Services, the victim of the offense, had not received notice of the circle meetings, but a circle member stated, and the district court found, that community services had received notice of the meetings. Apparently, no one from community services was present at any of the circle meetings.
The district court accepted the circle's recommendation and stated the following reasons for staying adjudication: the parties and the court had referred the matter “to the circle with a belief in that process and that standing by itself is a mitigating circumstance”; Pearson had no felony record or pattern of law violations and was not a public safety risk; to avoid impeding Pearson from obtaining future employment; a traumatic event in Pearson's life affected her emotional and mental state at the time she committed the offense and was a contributing factor to the offense; and if Pearson had had the financial means to qualify for diversion, she would not have been charged with a felony.
I S S U E S
I. Did the district court err in staying adjudication of the charges against Pearson?
II. Should Pearson's motion to strike be granted?
ANALYSIS
I.
In State v. Krotzer, 548 N.W.2d 252, 254-55 (Minn. 1996), the supreme court concluded that a decision to stay adjudication of a criminal charge is within the “inherent judicial power” of the district court. The supreme court also concluded in Krotzer that the district court's determination that a stay of adjudication was warranted was well-supported by the special circumstances of the case. Id. at 254.
In State v. Foss, 556 N.W.2d 540, 540 (Minn. 1996), the supreme court explained that, in Krotzer, it had held that
if “special circumstances” are present, then a trial court may stay an adjudication of guilty over the prosecutor's objection without violating the separation-of-powers doctrine.
The Foss court further explained:
It was not our intention that mere disagreement with the prosecutor's exercise of the charging discretion would constitute “special circumstances.” Rather, it was our intention that the inherent judicial authority recognized in [Krotzer] be relied upon sparingly and only for the purpose of avoiding an injustice resulting from the prosecutor's clear abuse of discretion in the exercise of the charging function.
Id. at 541 (emphasis in original).
In State v. Mitchell, 577 N.W.2d 481, 493 (Minn. 1998), the supreme court reiterated the statements it made in Krotzer and Foss:
At times, this court has recognized exceptions when the [district court] does have inherent judicial power to act in the furtherance of justice, but this power is to be exercised only when there are special circumstances, such as selective or discriminatory prosecutorial intent. The inherent judicial power recognized in Krotzer is limited, and is to be relied upon sparingly and only for the purpose of avoiding an injustice resulting from the prosecutor's clear abuse of discretion in the exercise of the charging function.
(Citation and quotation omitted) (emphasis in original).
In 1998, the legislature enacted Minn. Stat. § 611A.775 (1998), which authorizes restorative justice programs. Section 611A.775 states:
A community-based organization, in collaboration with a local governmental unit, may establish a restorative justice program. A restorative justice program is a program that provides forums where certain individuals charged with or petitioned for having committed an offense meet with the victim, if appropriate; the victim's family members or other supportive persons, if appropriate; the offender's family members or other supportive persons, if appropriate; a law enforcement official or prosecutor when appropriate; other criminal justice system professionals when appropriate; and members of the community, in order to:
(1) discuss the impact of the offense on the victim and the community;
(2) provide support to the victim and methods for reintegrating the victim into community life;
(3) assign an appropriate sanction to the offender; and
(4) provide methods for reintegrating the offender into community life.
There is no dispute that circle sentencing is a type of restorative justice program. Pearson argues that because restorative justice is an alternative to traditional sentencing under the criminal justice system and the state agreed to submit Pearson's case to circle sentencing, it should be bound to follow the circle's recommendation. We disagree. Although Minn. Stat. § 611.775(3) authorizes a restorative justice program to “assign an appropriate sanction to the offender,” the statutory language does not indicate a legislative intent to authorize restorative justice programs to assign a sanction that would be an improper sentence if imposed by the district court. Nor does the statute indicate that the district court must impose the sanction assigned in the restorative justice program. Absent statutory language indicating a clear legislative intent to subordinate the sentencing authority of the district court to the decision of the forum provided in a restorative justice program, a construction of Minn. Stat. § 611.775(3) that would have this effect is not reasonable. See Minn. Stat. § 645.17(1) (1998) (legislature does not intend result that is unreasonable).
Citing People v. Superior Court of San Mateo County, 520 P.2d 405, 410 (Cal. 1974), a case cited in Krotzer, Pearson argues that the prosecutor should not be allowed to override a sentencing circle's recommendation. But in that case, the California Supreme Court held that the decision to divert a defendant into a rehabilitation program could not constitutionally be subordinated to a prosecutor's veto. The court specifically noted that the decision to divert was a dispositional determination, not an extension of the charging process. Thus, unlike a stay of adjudication in Minnesota, under California law, a decision to divert an offender does not interfere with the prosecutor's charging authority.
Because the district court was not required to impose the sanction assigned in the restorative justice program, the district court could stay adjudication only if there were “special circumstances” warranting a stay of adjudication.
One reason the district court cited for staying adjudication was that if Pearson had had the financial means to qualify for diversion, she would not have been charged with a felony. Minn. Stat. § 401.065, subd. 2 (1998) (requiring counties to establish pretrial diversion programs for adult offenders). Neither Pearson nor the district court states the criteria for diverting welfare fraud offenders in Washington County, and we did not find this information in the record. The record, therefore, does not establish that the prosecutor abused its discretion by not referring Pearson to a diversion program.
Another reason for the stay of adjudication was to avoid impeding Pearson's employment prospects. But case law indicates that possible loss of a job is not an appropriate factor for the court to consider when deciding whether to stay adjudication. See State v. Twiss, 570 N.W.2d 487, 487 (Minn. 1997) (possible loss of a job due to criminal conviction is not a “special circumstance”; rather it is a typical consequence of a conviction for a serious offense);State v. Thoma, 569 N.W.2d 205, 209 (Minn. App. 1997) (collateral consequences of conviction for underage drinking and driving, including loss of employment due to driver's license suspension, not “special circumstances”), aff'd mem., 571 N.W.2d 773 (Minn. 1997).
The remaining reasons cited by the district court do not constitute “special circumstances” warranting a stay of adjudication. The decision to refer Pearson to the sentencing circle was made as part of the sentencing process and, therefore, is not relevant to determining whether the prosecutor abused its discretion in charging Pearson. Pearson does not cite any authority indicating that an offender's criminal history or the fact than an offender is not a threat to public safety is relevant to determining whether a stay of adjudication is warranted. As the state argues, these factors are taken into account in offense severity levels and in criminal history scores under the sentencing guidelines. Finally, the district court cited a traumatic event that occurred in Pearson's life, but the record does not indicate what that traumatic event was. Consequently, we cannot determine how it may have affected the prosecutor's charging decision.
II.
Pearson moves to strike from the brief and appendix to the state's brief an affidavit by the county attorney regarding its participation in other sentencing circles and all references to the affidavit. The papers filed in the district court, the exhibits, and the transcript of the proceeding, if any, shall constitute the record on appeal in all cases. Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 110.01. Because the affidavit was not sworn until after Pearson's sentencing, the motion to strike is granted.
D E C I S I O N
Because the sentencing circle had no authority to assign a stay of adjudication as a sanction for felony theft and the district court was not required to impose the sanction assigned by the sentencing circle, the state's agreement to refer Pearson to the sentencing circle was not a proper basis for staying adjudication of the felony-theft charge. Because there were not other special circumstances that demonstrated a clear abuse of prosecutorial discretion in the exercise of the charging function, the district court improperly stayed adjudication of the felony-theft charge against Pearson.
Reversed and remanded; motion granted.