Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Sailor, 257 N.W.2d 349.

32 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Caselaw establishes that DWI is a “nonintentional traffic offense.” 9 (holding misdemeanor DWI is not an intentional crime) .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. August Latimothy Fleming 883 N.W.2d 790 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. August Latimothy Fleming 883 N.W.2d 790 Minn. 2016
609.035 in determining whether nonintentional crimes or a mixture of nonintentional and intentional crimes are part of the same course of conduct is to analyze the facts and determine whether the offenses “[arise] out of a continuing and uninterrupted course of conduct, manifesting an indivisible state of mind or coincident errors of judgment.” Zuehlke, d at 81 ().
State v. Harris 667 N.W.2d 911 Minn. 2003
State v. Harris 667 N.W.2d 911 Minn. 2003
State v. Gibson 478 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 1991
State v. Gibson 478 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 1991
of such offenses.” The approach we have used in determining 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. Shellito 456 N.W.2d 470 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Shellito 456 N.W.2d 470 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
at 619 n. 2; (once guilty plea is accepted and recorded, further prosecution is barred by Minn.Stat.
State v. Holland 421 N.W.2d 382 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Holland 421 N.W.2d 382 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
When the offenses include both intentional and unintentional crimes, the critical question is whether the offense “[arose] out of a continuing and uninterrupted course of conduct, manifesting an indivisible state of mind or coincident errors of judgment.”
State v. Howard 360 N.W.2d 637 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Howard 360 N.W.2d 637 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
” State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 405
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
In determining whether the violation of traffic offenses involve the same behavioral incident we must examine whether the offenses “ ‘[arose] out of a continuing and uninterrupted course of conduct, manifesting an indivisible state of mind or coincident errors of judgment.’ ” ().
State v. Zimmerman 352 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
the Minnesota Supreme Court said: ...
State v. Banks 331 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 1983
State v. Banks 331 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 1983
In deciding whether nonintentional crimes or a mixture of nonintentional and intentional crimes were part of the same course of conduct, one must analyze 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.” State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 405
State v. Gilbertson 323 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 1982
State v. Gilbertson 323 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 1982
ich we have followed under section 609.035 in determining whether nonintentional crimes or a mixture of nonintentional and intentional crimes were part of the same course of conduct is to analyze 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.” (citations omitted); State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 405
State v. Zuehlke 320 N.W.2d 79 Minn. 1982
State v. Zuehlke 320 N.W.2d 79 Minn. 1982
State v. Boley 299 N.W.2d 924 Minn. 1980
State v. Boley 299 N.W.2d 924 Minn. 1980
have followed under section 609.035 in determining whether nonintentional crimes or a mixture of nonintentional and intentional crimes were part of the same course of conduct is to analyze the facts and determine whether the offenses “[arose] out of a continuing and uninterrupted course of conduct, manifesting an indivisible state of mind or coin *926 cident errors of judgment.” State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 405
City of Moorhead v. Miller 295 N.W.2d 548 Minn. 1980
In Re the Welfare of Castillo 293 N.W.2d 839 Minn. 1980
In Re the Welfare of Castillo 293 N.W.2d 839 Minn. 1980
State v. Clement 277 N.W.2d 411 Minn. 1979
State v. Clement 277 N.W.2d 411 Minn. 1979