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.