Cited by

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

255 citing documents.

State v. Williams 608 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 2000
10 .The statute "broaden[s] the protection afforded by our constitutional' provisions against double jeopardy.” State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 400
State v. Brown 597 N.W.2d 299 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Brown 597 N.W.2d 299 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 404
State v. Profit 591 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 1999
State v. Profit 591 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 1999
The factors relevant to determining whether offenses constitute a single behavioral incident are the “time and place [of the offenses] and * * * whether the segment of conduct involved was motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective.” (citing State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394 , ).
State v. Sater 588 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Sater 588 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Defendant cites State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394 , to support her argument that, if a jury acquits a criminal defendant of any charge arising from a behavioral incident, section 609.035 bars retrial of all remaining charges arising from that behavioral incident.
State v. Mullen 577 N.W.2d 505 Minn. 1998
State v. Mullen 577 N.W.2d 505 Minn. 1998
s to this rule, including other crimes committed during such offenses as kidnapping or burglary, but where a specific exception does not apply, determination of whether two or more crimes are part of a single behavioral incident requires examination of the time and place of the offenses and whether the defendant “was motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective.” State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 404
State v. Spears 560 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Spears 560 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 404
State v. Bowen 560 N.W.2d 709 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Bowen 560 N.W.2d 709 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
See, e.g., State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 404-05 , (explaining tests for determining what is a single behavioral incident for purposes of Minn.Stat.
State v. Butterfield 555 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Butterfield 555 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
(quoting State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 404 , ).
State v. Bishop 545 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Bishop 545 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
In a traffic case like this one, the test to be applied in determining whether offenses arose out of the same behavioral incident is whether those offenses arose “out of a continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct, manifesting an indivisible state of mind or coincident errors of judgment.” (quoting State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 405 , ).
State v. Bookwalter 541 N.W.2d 290 Minn. 1995
State v. Bookwalter 541 N.W.2d 290 Minn. 1995
State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 400
State v. Pettee 538 N.W.2d 126 Minn. 1995
State v. Pettee 538 N.W.2d 126 Minn. 1995
See, e.g., State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394
State v. Martinez 530 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Alt 529 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Alt 529 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 399 , (emphasis added).
State v. Simon 485 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Simon 485 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
A test to determine whether each violation charged resulted from a single behavioral incident was set forth in State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 404
State v. Gibson 478 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 1991
State v. Gibson 478 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 1991
whether two nonintentional crimes or a nonintentional and an intentional crime are part of the same course of conduct is to analyze all the facts and determine whether the offenses “[arose] out of a continuing and uninterrupted course of conduct, manifesting an indivisible state of mind or coincident errors of judgment.” see also State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 405
State v. Gibson 475 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Gibson 475 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
See State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394
State v. Naylor 474 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 1991
Distinguished State v. Naylor 474 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 1991
Under State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 404 , when separate charges arise from such a single criminal objective, conviction of multiple offenses is not permitted.
State v. O'HAGAN 474 N.W.2d 613 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. O'HAGAN 474 N.W.2d 613 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 399 , -22 (1966).
State v. Anderson 468 N.W.2d 345 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Anderson 468 N.W.2d 345 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
See State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 397-99 , -22 (1966); Minn.Stat.
State v. Hartfield 459 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 1990
State v. Hartfield 459 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 1990
State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 404
State v. Nordby 448 N.W.2d 878 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Nordby 448 N.W.2d 878 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
See State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394
State v. Secrest 437 N.W.2d 683 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Secrest 437 N.W.2d 683 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 397
State v. Grose 387 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Grose 387 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
*189 State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 404
State v. Norregaard 384 N.W.2d 449 Minn. 1986
State v. Norregaard 384 N.W.2d 449 Minn. 1986
State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 404
State v. Norregaard 380 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Norregaard 380 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
d at 476 (citing State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 401 , -25 (1966)).
State v. Chidester 380 N.W.2d 595 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Chidester 380 N.W.2d 595 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
The statute’s purpose is “to prohibit double punishment and at the same time to insure that punishment for a single incident of criminal behavior involving a multiplicity of violations will be commensurate with the criminality of defendant’s misconduct.” State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 399 , -22 (1966).