DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

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 v. Hudson 281 N.W.2d 870 Minn. 1979
    609.035; State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394
  • State v. DeFoe 280 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 1979
  • State v. DeFoe 280 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 1979
    State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394
  • State v. Moore 274 N.W.2d 505 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Moore 274 N.W.2d 505 Minn. 1979
    State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394
  • State v. Powless 272 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Powless 272 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 1978
    State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394
  • State v. Knight 260 N.W.2d 186 Minn. 1977
  • State v. Knight 260 N.W.2d 186 Minn. 1977
    State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394
  • State v. Gilbert 262 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 1977
  • State v. Gilbert 262 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 1977
    State v. Prudhomme, 303 Minn. 376 , State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394
  • State v. Sailor 257 N.W.2d 349 Minn. 1977
  • State v. Sailor 257 N.W.2d 349 Minn. 1977
    We made it clear in State v. Reiland, 274 Minn. 121, 127 , that if the state wishes to charge a defendant with more than one offense — one or more a misdemeanor and one or more a felony — it should be done in one prosecution in district court stating each offense as a separate count: ‘Finally, we allude to what was said in Johnson [State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394 , ] — that the problem presented in the case before us could not arise if both of the offenses were included in one prosecution statin
  • State v. Krech 252 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 1977
  • State v. Krech 252 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 1977
    See, State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394
  • State v. Wybierala 235 N.W.2d 197 Minn. 1975
  • State v. Wybierala 235 N.W.2d 197 Minn. 1975
    1 See, State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394 , State v. Gladden, 274 Minn. 533 , State v. Reiland, 274 Minn. 121 , State v. Harris, 277 Minn. 351 , State v. Murphy, 277 Minn. 355 , ; State ex rel.
  • State v. Prudhomme 228 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 1975
  • State v. Prudhomme 228 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 1975
    State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394
  • State v. White 219 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 1974
  • State v. White 219 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 1974
    In State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 404 , this court stated: “* * * The cases from other jurisdictions and comments of the advisory committee suggest that, apart from the factors of time and place, the essential ingredient of any test is whether *104 the segment of conduct involved was motivated by an effort to obtain a si
  • State v. Wheat 206 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 1973
  • State v. Wheat 206 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 1973
    See, State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394
  • State v. Finn 203 N.W.2d 114 Minn. 1972
  • State v. Finn 203 N.W.2d 114 Minn. 1972
    All such offenses may be included in one prosecution which shall be stated in separate counts.” In State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394 , we recognized that it was the purpose of this statute to prevent serialized prosecutions and double punishments which tend to exaggerate the criminality of conduct involving multiple offenses.
  • State v. Carlson 192 N.W.2d 421 Minn. 1971
  • State v. Carlson 192 N.W.2d 421 Minn. 1971
    There is nothing that bars conviction of several offenses arising out of the same conduct, but the statute does prohibit the imposition of punishment for more than one offense in such a situation.” In State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394 , defendant was charged with driving while intoxicated and driving over the centerline of a roadway.
  • State v. Clark 189 N.W.2d 167 Minn. 1971
  • State v. Clark 189 N.W.2d 167 Minn. 1971
    Assuming that these were, as defendants contend, multiple violations that occurred at substantially the same time and place and arose out of a continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct, manifesting an indivisible state of mind, State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 405 , 141 N. W. (2d) 517, 525 , defendants’ contention must be rejected on the authority of City of Bloomington v. Kossow, 269 Minn. 467 , 131 N. W. (2d) 206 , in which we held that a non-traffic violation of a municipal ordinance is
  • State v. Kooiman 185 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 1971
  • State v. Kooiman 185 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 1971
    In State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 404 , 141 N. W. (2d) 517, 525 , we noted that in cases involving criminal intent the essential ingredient of a test for determining the scope of application of the protections of § 609.035 is “whether the segment of conduct involved was motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective.” However, in traffi
  • State v. Corning 184 N.W.2d 603 Minn. 1971
  • State v. Corning 184 N.W.2d 603 Minn. 1971
    In interpreting the legislative intent of the statute in light of the comments of the advisory committee on revision of the crimi *385 nal law, this court in State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394 , 141 N. W. (2d) 517 , formulated a workable test for determining the scope of application of the protections contemplated by the statute.
  • State v. Boucher 176 N.W.2d 624 Minn. 1970
  • State v. Boucher 176 N.W.2d 624 Minn. 1970
    In State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394 , 141 N. W. (2d) 517 , we expressed a test for the application of § 609.035 to ambiguous factual situations.
  • State v. Musta 170 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 1969
  • State v. Musta 170 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 1969
    hich, in effect, state that our liberties are seriously threatened if obscene or radical literature is not permitted on a news stand or, conversely, if an innocuous prayer is permitted in the schools,’ he said.” See, State v. Shevchuk, 282 Minn. 182 , 163 N. W. (2d) 772 ; State v. Murphy, 277 Minn. 355 , 152 N. W. (2d) 507 ; State v. Reiland, 274 Minn. 121 , 142 N. W. (2d) 635 ; State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394 , 141 N. W. (2d) 517 ; Note, 50 Minn. L. Rev. 1102 .
  • State v. Krampotich 163 N.W.2d 772 Minn. 1968
  • State v. Shevchuk 163 N.W.2d 772 Minn. 1968
  • State v. Shevchuk 163 N.W.2d 772 Minn. 1968
    In State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 404 , 141 N. W. (2d) 517, 525 , we held that the statute applied only to the situation where each crime resulted from a single behavioral incident, tested as follows: “* * * [Ajpart from the factors of time and place, the essential ingredient of any test is whether the segment of conduct involved was motivated by an
  • State v. Krampotich 163 N.W.2d 772 Minn. 1968
    In State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 404 , , we held that the statute applied only to the situation where each crime resulted from a single behavioral incident, tested as follows: "* * * [A]part from the factors of time and place, the essential ingredient of any test is whether the segment of conduct involved was motivated by an effo
  • State Ex Rel. Stangvik v. Tahash 161 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 1968
  • State Ex Rel. Stangvik v. Tahash 161 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 1968
    City of Bloomington v. Kossow, 269 Minn. 467 , 13 N. W. (2d) 206 ; State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 405 , 141 N. W. (2d) 517, 525 ; State v. Reiland, 274 Minn. 121, 124 , 142 N. W. (2d) 635, 638 ; State v. Gladden, 274 Minn. 533 , 144 N. W. (2d) 779 ; State v. Murphy, 277 Minn. 355 , 152 N. W. (2d) 507 ; State v. Gaulke, 281 Minn. 327 , 161 N. W. (2d) 662 .
  • State v. Gaulke 161 N.W.2d 662 Minn. 1968
  • State v. Gaulke 161 N.W.2d 662 Minn. 1968
    Primarily he asserts, as he did at the habeas hearing before the district court, that his conviction violates the provisions of § 609.035 as that statute was interpreted in State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394 , 141 N. W. (2d) 517 .
  • State v. Fleck 161 N.W.2d 309 Minn. 1968
  • State v. Fleck 161 N.W.2d 309 Minn. 1968
    See, State v. Harris, 277 Minn. 351 , 152 N. W. (2d) 728 ; State v. Murphy, 277 Minn. 355 , 152 N. W. (2d) 507 ; State v. Reiland, 274 Minn. 121 , 142 N. W. (2d) 635 ; State v. Gladden, 274 Minn. 533 , 144 N. W. (2d) 779 ; State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394 , 141 N. W. (2d) 517 ; and City of Bloomington v. Kossow, 269 Minn. 467 , 131 N. W. (2d) 206 .
  • State Ex Rel. Boswell v. Tahash 154 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 1967
  • State Ex Rel. Boswell v. Tahash 154 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 1967
    There is nothing that bars conviction of several offenses arising out of the same conduct, but the statute does prohibit the imposition of punishment for more than one offense in such a situation.” In State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394 , 141 N. W. (2d) 517 , we held that § 609.035 prohibits both double punishment and serialized prosecutions if a person’s conduct constitutes more than one offense.
  • State v. Murphy 152 N.W.2d 507 Minn. 1967