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. Eaton, 292 N.W.2d 260.

75 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    n.5 (comparing Langdon, d at 476, -67 (Minn. 1980)).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    Appellant also notes that courts have rejected broad criminal objectives such as “abusive behavior” that might cover both counts 1-4 and counts 5-6, -67 (Minn. 1980) rev. denied (Minn. May 24, 1989).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    “A single behavioral incident is the result of a single motivation directed towards a single criminal goal.” State v. Infante , (), rev. denied (Minn. June 28, 2011); (where the defendant’s actions in obstructing-legal-process case were part of a “single behavioral incident,” jury was not required to unanimously agree on his specific actions).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    Minnesota Statutes section 609.251 (2020) provides: “a prosecution for or conviction of the crime of kidnapping is not a bar to conviction of or punishment for any other crime committed during the time of the kidnapping.” A
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    One way in which a prosecutor may deprive a defendant of a fair trial is by “mak[ing] insinuations on cross-examination that the prosecutor cannot back up with admissible evidence.” -97 (Minn. 1979).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    at occurred over a short time period, for the purpose of a “single criminal goal,” were a single behavioral incident); see, e.g., Dalbec, d at 512-13 (holding that no specific-unanimity instruction was required when a defendant committed multiple acts of domestic assault “at the same place” involving “a single victim,” even though the acts occurred over 24 hours); d 260, 267 (Minn. 1980) (holding that appellant’s objective of “one large plan to swindle as much as possible” was too broad to be a
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    “Making deceptive billings a continuing business practice does not transform them into a single behavioral incident.” Id.; see also, (stating that “one large plan to swindle as much as possible” is “too broad to be a single criminal goal”); State v. O’Brien, (affirming use of Hernandez method for each of four counts of theft by swindle arising out of the same ongoing fraudulent investment s
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    21, 1986); (concluding no unity of time and place where the state charged defendant with theft of two different checks at two different 12 times three days apart ).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    d 260, 267 (Minn. 1980) (holding that a “plan to swindle as much as possible.
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    Compare Langdon , d at 476 (concluding that four burglaries of an apartment complex on the same afternoon were committed with a single “overall criminal objective”), with State v. Eaton , d 260, 266 -67 (Minn. 1980) ( concluding that two thefts, committed three days apart by swindling the same victims, were not committed with a single criminal objective).
  • State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Bakken 883 N.W.2d 264 Minn. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Bakken 883 N.W.2d 264 Minn. 2016
    within the meaning of section 609.035”); -67 (Minn. 1980) (explaining that when appellant was convicted of two counts of theft by swindle for acts occurring 3 days apart, the objective of “swindl[ing] as much as possible” was “too broad to be a single criminal goal”).
  • State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Bakken 871 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Bakken 871 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    Appellant’s actions here are comparable.
  • Eduardo Cortez, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • Eduardo Cortez, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Don Antoine Jones 848 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Don Antoine Jones 848 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 2014
  • State v. Infante 796 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • State v. Infante 796 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
    “[A] single behavioral incident is the result of a single motivation directed towards a single criminal goal.”
  • State v. Bauer 792 N.W.2d 825 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Bauer 792 N.W.2d 825 Minn. 2011
    Our case law recognizes that “the criminal plan of obtaining as much money as possible is too broad an objective to constitute a single criminal goal within the meaning of section 609.035.” Gould, d at 521 (-67 (Minn.1980)).
  • State v. Heath 685 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Heath 685 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    The statute is intended “to protect against exaggerating the criminality of a person’s conduct and to make both punishment and prosecution commensurate with culpability.” () (other citation omitted), review denied (Minn. May 24, 1989).
  • State v. Marchbanks 632 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Marchbanks 632 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    (noting single behavioral incident is result of single motivation directed toward single criminal goal).
  • State v. Craven 628 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Craven 628 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • In Re Estate of Janecek 610 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 2000
  • In Re Estate of Janecek 610 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Greenleaf 591 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Greenleaf 591 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Lundberg 575 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • State v. Lundberg 575 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
    1 (1996) (providing if defendant’s conduct constitutes more than one offense, he may be punished for only one of the offenses); (concluding purpose of Minn.Stat.
  • State v. Gould 562 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Soto 562 N.W.2d 299 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Soto 562 N.W.2d 299 Minn. 1997
    (citation omitted); (citation omitted).
  • State v. Gould 562 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1997
    3 (citation omitted); (citation omitted).
  • State v. Townsend 546 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1996
  • State v. Townsend 546 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1996
  • State v. Fallin 540 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Fallin 540 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Pittel 518 N.W.2d 606 Minn. 1994
  • State v. Pittel 518 N.W.2d 606 Minn. 1994
    Among the many relevant cases, (upholding two convictions and two sentences where the defendant, as part of a single scheme to cheat a victim, obtained $12,500 on one date and $30,000 on another date; while it was true that the defendant “had one large plan to swindle as much as possible” from the victim, “that objective is too bro
  • State v. Medibus-Helpmobile, Inc. 481 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Medibus-Helpmobile, Inc. 481 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    (eight forgeries by employee over four-year period were not a single behavioral incident); (swindle).
  • State v. O'HAGAN 474 N.W.2d 613 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. O'HAGAN 474 N.W.2d 613 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    (“one large plan to swindle as much as possible * * * [was] too broad to be a single criminal goal within the meaning of section 609.035 where defendant planned and executed thefts of two different checks at two separate times” only three days *623 apart).
  • State v. Lamar 474 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1991