The sentencing followed a July 2025 incident involving a boy and a knife.<\/p>\n
Stoutenburgh received a 21-month prison sentence, which was stayed for five years.<\/p>\n
The court granted the stay as a downward dispositional departure.<\/p>\n
She received credit for 396 days already served.<\/p>\n
Five Years of Supervised Probation<\/h2>\n
Stoutenburgh must serve five years of supervised probation unless she is discharged earlier.<\/p>\n
She must complete any mental health evaluation requested by her probation agent.<\/p>\n
She must also take prescribed medications at the required dosage and schedule.<\/p>\n
Any medication changes must be reported to her probation agent.<\/p>\n
The court barred Stoutenburgh from possessing firearms, ammunition, or explosives for life unless her rights are restored.<\/p>\n
She must provide a DNA sample and pay $135 in fines and fees.<\/p>\n
A no-contact order involving her husband was lifted.<\/p>\n
Contact with the four children remains subject to orders in a related CHIPS case.<\/p>\n
![\"Edwina](\"https:\/\/trfnews.i234.me\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/FYJFGETXHZF5FMIUZHEMKYANQI.png\")
Edwina Marie Stoutenburgh<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\nMore information about CHIPS cases<\/a> is available from Minnesota courts.<\/p>\n The case began after a 911 call shortly after 7 a.m. on July 20, 2025.<\/p>\n Stoutenburgh’s husband contacted authorities after receiving a phone call from her while he was working.<\/p>\n Four children were found inside a vehicle near the end of the driveway.<\/p>\n They reported that Stoutenburgh had tried to cut the boy’s throat.<\/p>\n Court documents described several red abrasions on the boy’s neck.<\/p>\n Authorities then contacted Stoutenburgh at the home.<\/p>\n Court records say Stoutenburgh admitted cutting the boy with a dull knife.<\/p>\n She also described hearing voices and said she did not want to hurt anyone.<\/p>\n Stoutenburgh was later taken to Sanford Medical Center.<\/p>\n The sentencing followed a June ruling finding Stoutenburgh guilty in the knife assault case.<\/p>\n The court found she had not proven the mental illness defense.<\/p>\n Minnesota law<\/a> sets the standard for criminal responsibility involving mental illness.<\/p>\n A separate attempted second-degree murder without intent charge was dismissed.<\/p>\n The court found that charge legally impossible because an attempt requires intent.<\/p>\n Two psychologists evaluated Stoutenburgh and reached different diagnoses involving psychosis.<\/p>\n Both believed she did not understand the nature or wrongfulness of her actions.<\/p>\n The court disagreed after reviewing the full record.<\/p>\n The judge found Stoutenburgh understood that her conduct was wrong.<\/p>\n Before sentencing, Stoutenburgh expressed remorse and discussed progress made while receiving treatment in custody.<\/p>\n Her attorneys requested probation instead of an executed prison sentence.<\/p>\n The prosecution did not oppose that request.<\/p>\n The court cited her lack of criminal history, cooperation, remorse, family support, and willingness to receive treatment.<\/p>\n Information about sentencing departures is available from the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission<\/a>.<\/p>\n Readers can also visit the Pennington County District Court<\/a> website.<\/p>\nCase Began With July 2025 Incident<\/h2>\n
Court Rejected Mental Illness Defense<\/h2>\n
Court Grants Sentencing Departure<\/h2>\n