Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Shevchuk, 163 N.W.2d 772.

37 citing documents.

Munt v. State 920 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 2018
Stangvik v. Tahash , 281 Minn. 353 , , 672 (1968) ; see also State v. Prudhomme , 303 Minn. 376 , , 245 (1975) (explaining that "a different application of [ section 609.035 ] is appropriate where there are multiple victims"); State v. Krampotich , 282 Minn. 182 , , 776 n.7 (1968) (explaining that section 609.035 does "not apply where the conduct constituted separate crimes intentionally committed against more than one individual").
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
He explained that aun t is an essential prosecution witness on the assault charge, but on the child neglect charges , she is an important defense witness, and that his defenses to each charge would be undermined 2 This case is also reported as State v. Shevchuk, 282 Minn. 182 (1968).
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Benjamin Klanderud Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Bookwalter, d at 295 (holding that sexual assault and attempted murder were not part of a single behavioral incident where they occurred in or near the victim’s vehicle at two distinct times and places, and that a single common criminal objective failed to underlie both offenses); see also Stevenson, d at 720; State v. Krampotich, 282 Minn. 182, 187-88, (holding that several crimes were not part of a single behavioral incident where, although all the crimes 5 occurred during the same evening
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Bakken 883 N.W.2d 264 Minn. 2016
We consider “whether all of the acts performed were necessary to or incidental to the commission of a single crime and motivated by an intent to commit that crime.” State v. Krampotich, 282 Minn. 182, 186-87
State of Minnesota v. Luke Brandon Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2016
We must determine if “all of the acts performed were necessary to or incidental to the commission of a single crime and motivated by an intent to commit that crime.” State v. Krampotich, 282 Minn. 182, 186-87
State of Minnesota v. Don Antoine Jones 848 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 2014
282 Minn. 182, 184-86, -76 (1968).
State v. Bauer 792 N.W.2d 825 Minn. 2011
282 Minn. 182 , 187, , 776 (1968).
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. Shevchuk, 282 Minn. 182, 186-87 , see also Bookwalter, d at 295-96 (stating that although focus primarily is on defendant’s conduct rather than elements of crimes committed, “it is meaningful to recognize that the two crimes involve separate intents”).
State v. Bookwalter 541 N.W.2d 290 Minn. 1995
See also State v. Krampotich, 282 Minn. 182, 187 , (holding that offenses of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, simple robbery, simple assault and aggravated assault did not arise out of a single behavioral incident because, in contrast to the situation in which each crime is part of a “prearranged program of events,” the defendants
State v. Naylor 474 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 1991
State v. Krampotich, 282 Minn. 182, 187
State v. Perez 404 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See State v. Shevchuck, 282 Minn. 182 , 186, , 775-6 (1968).
Bixby v. State 344 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 1984
Bixby v. State 344 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 1984
See, State v. Shevchuk, 282 Minn. 182
State v. Herberg 324 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 1982
State v. Herberg 324 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 1982
See, State v. Shevchuk, 282 Minn. 182
State v. Howard 324 N.W.2d 216 Minn. 1982
In State v. Krampotich, 282 Minn. 182 , this court found a waiver of the right to challenge a jury panel where that panel was aware of a *220 related prior conviction.
State v. Scott 304 N.W.2d 296 Minn. 1981
State v. Scott 304 N.W.2d 296 Minn. 1981
(per curiam); State v. Shevchuk, 282 Minn. 182
State v. Stevenson 286 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 1979
State v. Stevenson 286 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 1979
See, State v. Shevchuk, 282 Minn. 182
State v. Knight 260 N.W.2d 186 Minn. 1977
State v. Knight 260 N.W.2d 186 Minn. 1977
While the two assaults arguably were divisible — see, State v. Shevchuk, 282 Minn. 182 , — we do not need to decide this point because it is apparent that there is no merit to defendant’s contention that he was prejudiced by a joint trial.
State v. Krech 252 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 1977
State v. Krech 252 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 1977
4 See, e. g., State v. Prudhomme, 303 Minn. 376 , (rape, indecent liberties, and assault); State v. Shevchuk, 282 Minn. 182 , (assault, robbery, and unauthorized use of motor vehicle); State v. Murphy, 277 Minn. 355 , (drunkenness and unauthorized use of motor vehicle).
State v. Wybierala 235 N.W.2d 197 Minn. 1975
Stangvik v. Tahash, 281 Minn. 353 , State v. Fleck, 281 Minn. 247 , State v. Shevchuck, 282 Minn. 182 , State v. Boucher, 286 Minn. 475 , State v. Kooiman, 289 Minn. 439 , State v. Carlson, 291 Minn. 368 , State v. Finn, 295 Minn. 520 , State v. Wheat, 296 Minn. 97
State v. Hogan 212 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 1973
State v. Hogan 212 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 1973
State v. Annis, 291 Minn. 552 , State v. Shevchuk, 282 Minn. 182
State v. Annis 192 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 1971
State v. Annis 192 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 1971
Absent any showing of actual bias, State v. Shevchuk, 282 Minn. 182 , or real likelihood of prejudice, cf. State v. Thompson, 266 Minn. 385 , we do not hesitate to affirm the trial court’s exercise of its judicial discretion.
State v. Carlson 192 N.W.2d 421 Minn. 1971
State v. Carlson 192 N.W.2d 421 Minn. 1971
Stangvik v. Tahash, 281 Minn. 353 , wherein we concluded that multiple sentences were proper for separate crimes intentionally committed against more than one individual; State v. Shevchuk, 282 Minn. 182 , where this court affirmed the findings that the defendants’ actions in terrorizing and robbing a victim were a divisible series of incidents rather than a “single behavioral incident”; and State v. Boucher, 286 Minn. 475 , where *380 in the defendant’s conviction of
State v. Everson 175 N.W.2d 503 Minn. 1970
State v. Everson 175 N.W.2d 503 Minn. 1970
State v. Shevchuk, 282 Minn. 182 , 163 N. W. (2d) 772 ; State v. Steeves, 279 Minn. 298 , 157 N. W. (2d) 67 .
State v. Musta 170 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 1969
State v. Musta 170 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 1969
Little, if any, attention is given to court decisions which, 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
State v. Krampotich 163 N.W.2d 772 Minn. 1968