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. Koonsman, 281 N.W.2d 487.

58 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    -90 (Minn. 1979) (holding that defendant who “committed only one criminal sexual act” and was found guilty of third- and fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct could only be convicted of one count of third - degree criminal sexual conduct).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    Cf. State v. Koonsman , (concluding 8 kidnapping and sexual misconduct part of same behavioral incident where defendant kidnapped child with purpose of committing an act of sexual misconduct); –18 (Minn. 1968) (concluding indecent assault and kidnapping part of same behavioral inci
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    -90 (Minn. 1979) (holding it would violate section 609.04 to convict defendant of “two counts of criminal sexual conduct in the third degree and two in the fourth degree” for one act of criminal sexual conduct.)
  • State v. Osborne 715 N.W.2d 436 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Osborne 715 N.W.2d 436 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Reese 692 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Reese 692 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Bertsch 689 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Bertsch 689 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    Patch, d at 837 ; (noting state cannot avoid application of rule by fashioning separate counts).
  • State v. Johnson 616 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Johnson 616 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 2000
    See, -90 (Minn.1979) (holding that it would violate § 609.04 to enter four convictions for one act of criminal sexual conduct); (holding that section 609.04 prohibits multiple convictions under differ ent sections of the same statute for a single criminal act against the
  • State v. Spears 560 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Spears 560 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
    (noting state cannot avoid application of rule by fashioning separate counts).
  • State v. Frank 416 N.W.2d 744 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Frank 416 N.W.2d 744 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    and similar cases in his section 609.035 argument.
  • State v. Dooley 380 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Dooley 380 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    See, State v. Prudhomme, 303 Minn. 376
  • State v. Solomon 359 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Solomon 359 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1984
    This is because (a) in submitting necessarily included offenses the trial court should be guided by the principles of section 609.04, not by whether or not the state has charged the defendant with the included offenses in separate counts, and (b) under the test of State v. Leinweber, 303 Minn. 414 , the court generally should submit included offenses only if the evidence is such that the jury rationally could acquit the defendant of the charged offense and find him guilty of the included offense
  • State v. Rud 352 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Heidelberger 353 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Heidelberger 353 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Ture v. State 353 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1984
  • Ture v. State 353 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Ponte-Alfonzo 348 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Ponte-Alfonzo 348 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Richardson 332 N.W.2d 912 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Richardson 332 N.W.2d 912 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Beito 332 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Beito 332 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 1983
    In this respect, and State v. Prudhomme, 303 Minn. 376 , cases indicating that kidnapping and rape are part of a single behavioral incident where the kidnapping is committed for the purpose of facilitating the rape.
  • State v. Patch 329 N.W.2d 833 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Patch 329 N.W.2d 833 Minn. 1983
    The cases support defendant, see and the state concedes this issue.
  • State v. Stufflebean 329 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Stufflebean 329 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Gayles 327 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Gayles 327 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Kemp 305 N.W.2d 322 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Kemp 305 N.W.2d 322 Minn. 1981
    The statute we are directly concerned with is section 609.04, which, as interpreted by the court — see, e. g., -forbids two convictions of the same offense or of one offense and a lesser-included offense on the basis of the same criminal act.
  • State v. Owens 304 N.W.2d 916 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Owens 304 N.W.2d 916 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Jones 304 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Jones 304 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 1981
    § 609.04 (1980), which, as interpreted by this court— — forbids two convictions of the same offense (or of one offense and a lesser included offense) on the basis of the same criminal act.
  • State v. Chamberlain 301 N.W.2d 313 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Chamberlain 301 N.W.2d 313 Minn. 1981
    § 609.04 (1978) and expressed in our case law-see, e. g., -one of the two must be vacated.
  • State v. Scott 298 N.W.2d 67 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Scott 298 N.W.2d 67 Minn. 1980
    We have applied this test in numerous cases, including the following recent ones:
  • State v. Terry 295 N.W.2d 95 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Discher 295 N.W.2d 99 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Discher 295 N.W.2d 99 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Terry 295 N.W.2d 95 Minn. 1980
    appeal after remand, cert.