DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Johnson, 141 N.W.2d 517.

255 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota v. Tarah Louise Fichtner 867 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 404-05
  • State of Minnesota v. Mo Savoy Hicks 864 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Stephanie JoNell Guscette Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Stephanie JoNell Guscette Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    Multiple sentences may be imposed only if multiple offenses do not arise from “a single behavioral incident.” State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 399, -22 (1966).
  • State of Minnesota v. Janiece Rochelle Asante Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Janiece Rochelle Asante Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    conduct involved was motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective.’” (quoting State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 404, ).
  • State of Minnesota v. Roosevelt Hunter Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Roosevelt Hunter Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 404
  • State of Minnesota v. Don Antoine Jones 848 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Don Antoine Jones 848 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 2014
    See State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 399, -22 (1966).
  • State v. St. John 847 N.W.2d 704 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State v. St. John 847 N.W.2d 704 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    at 322 (quoting State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 399 , ).
  • State v. Chavarria-Cruz 839 N.W.2d 515 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Castillo-Alvarez 820 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Castillo-Alvarez 820 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    (stating that section 609.04, which addresses lesser-included offenses, “expressly prohibits multiple convictions which might not be prohibited by the [federal] Double Jeopardy Clause”); State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 399-400 , (discussing section 609.035 and concluding that the purpose of the statute is “not only to protect against double punishment but also *617 to broaden the protection afforded by our constitutional provisions against double jeopardy”).
  • State v. Montermini 819 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Montermini 819 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    See State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 397 , -21 (1966).
  • State v. Ferguson 808 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Ferguson 808 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 2012
    Section 609.035 “contemplates that a defendant will be punished for the ‘most serious’ of the offenses arising out of a single behavioral incident because ‘imposing up to the maximum punishment for the most serious offense will include punishment for all offenses.’” (quoting State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 399 , ); (same).
  • State v. Bauer 792 N.W.2d 825 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Bauer 792 N.W.2d 825 Minn. 2011
    State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 404
  • State v. Rivers 787 N.W.2d 206 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Rivers 787 N.W.2d 206 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    In State v. Johnson, the supreme court formulated a test to be used in determining whether two intentional offenses arose out of a single behavioral incident and emphasized that, in addition to the factors of time and place, “the essential ingredient of any test is whether the segment of conduct involved was motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective.” 273 Minn. 394, 404
  • State v. Bauer 776 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Bauer 776 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 404
  • State v. Franks 765 N.W.2d 68 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Franks 765 N.W.2d 68 Minn. 2009
    We have said “that section 609.035 contemplates that a defendant will be punished for the ‘most serious’ of the offenses arising out of a single behavioral incident because ‘imposing up to the maximum punishment for the most serious offense will include punishment for all offenses.’ ” (quoting State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 399 , ).
  • State v. Jones 745 N.W.2d 845 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Jones 745 N.W.2d 845 Minn. 2008
    The statute “contemplates that a defendant will be punished for the ‘most serious’ of the offenses arising out of a single behavioral incident because ‘imposing up to the maximum punishment for the most serious offense will include punishment for all offenses.’ ” (quoting State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 399 , ).
  • Hankerson v. State 723 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Kebaso 713 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Kebaso 713 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 2006
    We have stated that section 609.035 contemplates that a defendant will be punished for the “most serious” of the offenses arising out of a single behavioral incident because “imposing up to the maximum punishment for the most serious offense will include punishment for all offenses.” State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 399 , see also State v. Morris, 281 Minn. 119, 123
  • State v. Bertsch 707 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Bertsch 707 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2006
    Factors considered when analyzing' whether conduct is a single behavioral incident include “time 'and place * '* * [and] whether the segment of conduct involved was motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective.” State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 404 , -25 (1966) (emphasis omitted).
  • State v. Skipintheday 704 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Skipintheday 704 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 399
  • State v. Bertsch 689 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Bertsch 689 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    § 609.035 (2002) “broaden[s] the protection afforded by our constitutional provisions against double jeopardy.” State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 400
  • State v. Baxter 686 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Baxter 686 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 397
  • State v. Leja 684 N.W.2d 442 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Reimer 625 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Reimer 625 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 405
  • State v. Meland 616 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Meland 616 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 404
  • State v. Schmidt 612 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 2000
  • Explained State v. Schmidt 612 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 2000
    See State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 397
  • State v. Large 607 N.W.2d 774 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Large 607 N.W.2d 774 Minn. 2000
    See generally State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 399 , (holding that the purpose of the statute is “to limit punishment to a single sentence when a single behavioral incident resulted in the violation of more than one criminal statute” (citation omitted)).
  • State v. Williams 608 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 2000