Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Alexander, 290 N.W.2d 745.

44 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
ross-examination of C.J. and the police officer—was based on his understanding that the alleged victim of the second-degree assault charge was C.J. “[T]he policies behind [Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure] 17.05 appear to be to protect against confusing the jury, violating due process notions of timely notice, and adversely affecting the trial tactics of the defense.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
The supreme court has held that these sentences may be imposed consecutively because “[a] burglary and the crime committed after entering the building are not the same offense.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
A defendant may be prejudiced by an amendment pursuant to rule 17.05 if the amendment adversely affects “the opportunity to prepare a defense.” (stating that rule 17.05 protects against “violating due process notions of timely notice” and “adversely affecting the trial tactics of the defense”).
Jackson v. State 927 N.W.2d 308 Minn. 2019
Jackson v. State 927 N.W.2d 308 Minn. 2019
5 Cf. State v. Alexander , , 749 (Minn. 1980) (stating that "there is no need for a remand on this issue in this case because there is no possibility that vindictiveness was involved in the decision to amend the complaint").
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(holding that rule 17.05 did not apply to an amendment af ter a mistrial and before the start of a second trial); (“The supreme court has interpreted Rule 17.05 to apply only to motio ns to amend after t h e commencement of trial.”), review
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
any time before verdict or finding if no additional or different offense is charged and if the defendant’s s ubstantial rights are not prejudiced.” The supreme court has noted that the purpose of ru le 17.05 “appear[s] to be to protect against confusing the jury, violating due process notions of timely notice, and adversely affecting 5 the trial tactics of the defense.”
State of Minnesota v. Artis Iverson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Artis Iverson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A presumption of vindictive prosecution also applies when the state amends the complaint after a mistrial to “increase the severity of the originally charged offense.”
State v. Holmes 778 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 2010
State v. Holmes 778 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 2010
§ 609.035 allows for separate convictions and sentences for burglary and crimes committed during the burglary, and that multiple punishments for a single behavioral incident involving burglary “will not unduly exaggerate the culpability of a defendant’s conduct.”
State v. Weltzin 618 N.W.2d 600 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Weltzin 618 N.W.2d 600 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
P. 17.05 are “to protect against confusing the jury, violating due process notions of timely notice, and adversely affecting the trial tactics of the defense.”
State v. Schmidt 612 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 2000
State v. Schmidt 612 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 2000
State v. Guerra 562 N.W.2d 10 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Guerra 562 N.W.2d 10 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Gisege 561 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 1997
State v. Gisege 561 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 1997
17.05; (stating that Rule 17.05 “prohibits the amending of complaints to charge additional offenses after a trial has commenced”); State v. Doeden, 309 Minn. 544, 546-47 , (applying Rule 17.05 to motions to amend after commencement of trial).
State v. Caswell 551 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Caswell 551 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
P. 17.05 (allowing amendments under these conditions any time before verdict); (interpreting this rule to apply only after trial has begun); (stating additional or different offenses may not be added once jeopardy has attached); (indicating courts have discretion to a
State v. Pettee 538 N.W.2d 126 Minn. 1995
State v. Pettee 538 N.W.2d 126 Minn. 1995
(refusing to impose a presumption of vindictiveness where the state added new and distinct counts to the complaint after the first trial ended in a mistrial, opting instead to apply a standard of “vindictiveness in fact”); (refusing to impose a presu
State v. Pettee 511 N.W.2d 43 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Pettee 511 N.W.2d 43 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Bluhm 457 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Wickstrom 405 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Wickstrom 405 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(amendment of complaint during trial).
State v. Alexander 388 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Alexander 388 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Weaver 386 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Weaver 386 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
(when accused is convicted of an offense and a lesser included offense, the conviction for the lesser included offense must be vacated); Minn.Stat.
State v. Stanifer 382 N.W.2d 213 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Stanifer 382 N.W.2d 213 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Further, the supreme court vacated two convictions for aggravated assault because the state had conceded that aggravated assault was a lesser included offense of aggravated robbery.
State v. Mickelson 378 N.W.2d 17 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Mickelson 378 N.W.2d 17 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
(citing State v. Doeden, 309 Minn. 544 , ).
Alexander v. State 319 N.W.2d 15 Minn. 1982
Alexander v. State 319 N.W.2d 15 Minn. 1982
State v. Smith 313 N.W.2d 429 Minn. 1981
State v. Smith 313 N.W.2d 429 Minn. 1981
State v. Gant 305 N.W.2d 790 Minn. 1981
State v. Gant 305 N.W.2d 790 Minn. 1981
State v. Spaulding 296 N.W.2d 870 Minn. 1980
State v. Spaulding 296 N.W.2d 870 Minn. 1980
we held that where there is no possibility of vindictiveness, the amendment of a complaint after mistrial, adding new counts to an original charge, does not constitute a denial of due process.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by