Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. DeFoe, 280 N.W.2d 38.

51 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(affirming appellant’s conviction of substantive crime of robbery when state’s theory relied on aiding-and-abetting theory and state failed to cite section 609.05 in its complaint); d 142, 156 (Minn. 2024) (“Aiding and abetting is not a separate substantive offense.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(affirming a defendant’s conviction for aggravated robbery based on an aiding and abetting theory).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
10 (“[E]ven if the indictment had not used ‘aiding and abetting’ language, the jury would have been free to base the murder conviction on a determination that [the] defendant was liable as an aider or abettor.”); , 42 (Minn. 1979) (affirming conviction for aiding and abetting even though the defendant was not charged with aiding and abetting).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(concluding appellant had notice of state’s aiding-and-abetting theory because the complaint together with “the reports and statements attached” to it made “clear” the state’s theory and there was “no possibility that [appellant] was confused as to the nature of the charges”).
State of Minnesota v. Cheng Pao Vue Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Cheng Pao Vue Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See, (noting that although aiding-and-abetting was not cited in the complaint, “the reports and statements attached to the complaint made it clear what the state basically contended had happened [and] [t]here is therefore no possibility that defendant was confused as to the nature of the charges”).
State of Minnesota v. Paul Andrew Skog Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paul Andrew Skog Minn. Ct. App. 2015
And although the state failed to cite the correct subdivision in the complaint, we have previously recognized that a defendant is not entitled to reversal where, as here, the complaint made it clear what crime the state was charging the defendant with and there was “no possibility that defendant was confused as to the nature of the charges.”
State of Minnesota v. Yia Her Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Yia Her Minn. Ct. App. 2015
absence of ‘aiding and abetting’ language in the complaint”); (stating that “even if the indictment had not used ‘aiding and abetting’ language, the jury would have been free 10 to base the murder conviction on a determination that defendant was liable as an aider or abettor”); (rejecting argument that evidence was insufficient to support defendant’s aggravated-robbery conviction where evidence proved that his accomplices committed aggravated robbery, although state failed to allege accomplice l
State v. Ferguson 808 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 2012
State v. Edwards 774 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2009
State v. Edwards 774 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2009
In other cases that predate the creation of the sentencing guidelines, we stated that "[w]e have adopted the rule that multiple sentences may be imposed in multiple victim cases provided the sentences do not unfairly exaggerate the criminality of the defendant's conduct.” (holding in cases involving multiple victims that "[allowing multiple sentencing ...
Santiago v. State 644 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2002
Santiago v. State 644 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2002
State v. Greenleaf 591 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1999
State v. DeVerney 592 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 1999
State v. Greenleaf 591 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1999
State v. DeVerney 592 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 1999
State v. Townsend 546 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1996
State v. Townsend 546 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1996
State v. Ostrem 535 N.W.2d 916 Minn. 1995
State v. Ostrem 535 N.W.2d 916 Minn. 1995
a case of striking similarity, we affirmed the conviction of a defendant for aggravated robbery based on an aiding and abetting theory even though Minn.Stat.
State v. Ostrem 520 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Ostrem 520 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
(affirming conviction for aiding and abetting where statute was not mentioned in complaint).
State v. Stanifer 382 N.W.2d 213 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Stanifer 382 N.W.2d 213 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
for the proposition that fifth-degree assault is not a lesser included offense of simple robbery.
State v. Edwards 380 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Edwards 380 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Hathaway 379 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 1985
State v. Hathaway 379 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 1985
-66 (Minn.1980); -32 (Minn.1978); State v. Swenson, 301 Minn. 199, 201-02
State v. Ewald 373 N.W.2d 358 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Ewald 373 N.W.2d 358 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Shannon, 177 Minn. 278, 280-81 , 225 N.W.
State v. Lucas 372 N.W.2d 731 Minn. 1985
State v. Lucas 372 N.W.2d 731 Minn. 1985
(fact that section 609.05 was not mentioned in the complaint did not bar the defendant’s conviction on an aiding and abetting theory).
Effinger v. State 368 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Effinger v. State 368 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Ortlepp 363 N.W.2d 39 Minn. 1985
State v. Ortlepp 363 N.W.2d 39 Minn. 1985
(failure to specifically cite aiding and abetting statute in complaint did not bar conviction of defendant on basis of his conduct in aiding and abetting aggravated robbery).
State v. Stock 362 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Stock 362 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Fischer 354 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Fischer 354 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. McAdoo 330 N.W.2d 104 Minn. 1983
State v. McAdoo 330 N.W.2d 104 Minn. 1983
duct in the first degree and for offense of soliciting or inducing the same person to practice prostitution, because while defendant committed the act of criminal sexual conduct in furtherance of the scheme to turn the victim into a prostitute, defendant also had a separate, independent motivation for the act of criminal sexual conduct, namely, to satisfy his sexual impulses), (suggesting that gratuitous assault of victim of robbery was not in furtherance of the robbery and that therefore the as
DeFoe v. State 326 N.W.2d 6 Minn. 1982
DeFoe v. State 326 N.W.2d 6 Minn. 1982
State v. Rieck 286 N.W.2d 724 Minn. 1979
State v. Rieck 286 N.W.2d 724 Minn. 1979
41 — 42 (Minn.1979), we stated (footnote omitted): The test used to determine whether it is proper to punish a defendant twice for multiple intentional offenses arising from the same basic incident is whether the underlying conduct was motivated by a desire on defendant’s part to obtain a single criminal objective o
State v. Spann 287 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 1979