Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Reiland, 142 N.W.2d 635.

80 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(“Caselaw distinguishes between continuing offenses and offenses limited in time and place.”) ; (concluding that driving after cancellation and DWI involved errors of judgment
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
at 468, d at 274 (citing State v. Reiland, 274 Minn. 121, 127, ).
State of Minnesota v. Luke Brandon Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Luke Brandon Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A single criminal objective must demonstrate a unity of purpose or be “the result of a single motivation directed toward a single goal.” State v. Reiland, 274 Minn. 121, 125, 638 (1966).
Eduardo Cortez, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Eduardo Cortez, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Whether the violations result from a single behavioral incident depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.” State v. Reiland, 274 Minn. 121, 123
State of Minnesota v. Mario Gonzalez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Mario Gonzalez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See State v. Reiland, 274 Minn. 121, 124–25, (“As is true of .
State v. Bauer 792 N.W.2d 825 Minn. 2011
State v. Bauer 792 N.W.2d 825 Minn. 2011
determine whether two unintentional crimes or an intentional and an unintentional crime arise from a single behavioral incident, we analyze the facts to determine whether the offenses ‘'occurred] at substantially the same time and place and ar[ose] out of a continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct, manifesting an indivisible state of mind or coincident errors of judgment.” State v. Reiland, 274 Minn. 121, 124
State v. Bauer 776 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Bauer 776 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
at 1797-98 (describing line of precedent recognizing strict criminal liability for “public welfare” offenses); State v. Reiland, 274 Minn. 121, 124-25 , (“Although the offense of negligent homicide is classified as a serious crime, in essence it is a traffic offense designed to promote the safety of persons properly upon the highway.
State v. Levie 695 N.W.2d 619 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Levie 695 N.W.2d 619 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
See 274 Minn. 121, 123 , ("while there is no necessity for reiterating the background, policy, and purpose of the statute, it must be emphasized that it does prohibit multiple prosecutions as well as double punishment.
State v. Reimer 625 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Reimer 625 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
In State v. Wheat, 296 Minn. 97 , the supreme court, relying on State v. Reiland, 274 Minn. 121 , held that although acts leading to charges of operating a motor vehicle without a license and speeding occurred at the same time and place, the offenses were separate and distinct.
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. Reiland, 274 Minn. 121, 123
State v. Bookwalter 541 N.W.2d 290 Minn. 1995
State v. Bookwalter 541 N.W.2d 290 Minn. 1995
State v. Reiland, 274 Minn. 121, 125
State v. Gibson 475 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Gibson 475 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Reiland, 274 Minn. 121, 123
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. Reiland, 274 Minn. 121, 123
State v. Secrest 437 N.W.2d 683 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Secrest 437 N.W.2d 683 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
“Whether the violations result from a single behavioral incident depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.” State v. Reiland, 274 Minn. 121, 123 , , *685 637 (1966).
State v. Axford 419 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Axford 419 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Reiland, 274 Minn. 121, 123
Effinger v. State 380 N.W.2d 483 Minn. 1986
Effinger v. State 380 N.W.2d 483 Minn. 1986
See State v. Reiland, 274 Minn. 121, 125
State v. Howard 360 N.W.2d 637 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Howard 360 N.W.2d 637 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Under the statute, “if two offenses * * * are committed in a unitary course of criminal conduct, then the state should join the * * * prosecution[s] in a single prosecution * * *.” (citing State v. Reiland, 274 Minn. 121 , ).
State v. Wurst 350 N.W.2d 482 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Zimmerman 352 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Wurst 350 N.W.2d 482 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Reiland, 274 Minn. 121, 123
State v. Zimmerman 352 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
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....
State v. Gilbertson 323 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 1982
State v. Gilbertson 323 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 1982
1 *812 The state cites State v. Reiland, 274 Minn. 121 , as justifying the multiple sentencing in this case.
State v. Zuehlke 320 N.W.2d 79 Minn. 1982
State v. Zuehlke 320 N.W.2d 79 Minn. 1982
State v. Reiland, 274 Minn. 121
State v. Mendoza 297 N.W.2d 286 Minn. 1980
State v. Mendoza 297 N.W.2d 286 Minn. 1980
State v. Reiland, 274 Minn. 121
City of Moorhead v. Miller 295 N.W.2d 548 Minn. 1980
City of Moorhead v. Miller 295 N.W.2d 548 Minn. 1980
and State v. Reiland, 274 Minn. 121
State v. Eaton 292 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1980
State v. Eaton 292 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1980
State v. Rellano, 274 Minn. 121
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.
State v. Krech 252 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 1977
State v. Krech 252 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 1977
State v. Reiland, 274 Minn. 121, 123