Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Stevenson, 286 N.W.2d 719.

42 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Mainza Lombe Malambo Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Mainza Lombe Malambo Minn. Ct. App. 2023
in which the supreme court concluded that two rapes of the same victim, in the same place, were not a single behavioral incident because they were separated by nearly five hours and “neither act bore any essential relationship to the other.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See, e.g., Degroot, -66 (affirming that a 45-minute break be tween communications is a sufficient 5 difference in time to suppo rt multiple convictions); (holding that two criminal acts occurring five hours apart were not part of single behavioral incident); State v. Schevchuk , (holding that several crimes were not part of single behavi oral incident when offenses occurred over a period of two and one-half hours).
Marlow Shelton McDonald, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
d 719, 720 (Minn. 1979) (concluding that two incidents of sexual contact with the victim five hours apart were not part of single behavioral incident); State v. Schevchuk , d 772, 776 (Minn. 1968) (holding that several crimes wer e not part of single behavioral incident when offenses occurred at clearly separate
A19-1493 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
E.g., State v. Bookwalter , (holding that first -degree criminal sexual conduct and attempted murder were separate offenses and not part of a single behavioral incident even though both offenses were com mitted against the same victim and at locations less than two miles apart); State v. Stevenson , (holding that both acts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct were separate offenses and not part of a single behavioral incident even though both offenses were committed against the same victim, o
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
tinuous and uninterrupted course of conduct” and that there was a “significant break, not just in time but also in actions by the defendant,” and that there were “separate intents, separate states of mind.” As support for its determination that the two offenses were not part of a single behavioral incident
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(concluding that multiple offenses separated by approximately five hours did not occur at substantially same time ); State v. Bishop , (concluding that multiple offenses separated by three hours did not occur at substantially same time ); State v. Wurst, 350
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
It is true that Maldonado Zepeda’s five-week conduct occurred over a shorter period than Suhon’s. But the supreme court has held that no unity 8 of time existed between multiple incidents occurring in just a single weekend, see, and between incidents occurring within five hours of each other, see
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Benjamin Klanderud Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Benjamin Klanderud Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Likewise, the supreme court concluded that two incidents of sexual contact with the same victim occurring five hours apart but in the same place, were not a part of the same behavioral incident, reasoning that “neither act bore any essential relationship to the other.”
State of Minnesota v. Sedne Bonitaz Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Sedne Bonitaz Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Likewise, the supreme court concluded that two incidents of sexual contact with the same victim occurring five hours apart but in the same place, were not a part of the same behavioral incident, reasoning that “neither act bore any essential relationship to the other.”
State of Minnesota v. Wilfred Carl Hudson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Wilfred Carl Hudson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(affirming sentence for two counts of criminal sexual conduct for two contacts five hours apart).
State v. Suhon 742 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Suhon 742 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
(rejecting single-behavioral-incident argument and affirming sentence for three separate counts of criminal sexual conduct for three separate contacts during one weekend); (affirming sentence for two counts of criminal sexual conduct for two contacts five hours apart).
State v. Johnson 653 N.W.2d 646 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Johnson 653 N.W.2d 646 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
(upholding concurrent sentences for convictions of three counts of criminal sexual conduct based on three contacts with the same victim over a weekend); (upholding consecutive sentences for convictions of two counts of criminal-sexual-conduct based on contacts with the same victim over a five-hour period).
State v. Jackson 615 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Jackson 615 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(holding that sexual assault and attempted murder were not part of a single behavioral incident where they occurred in or near the victim’s van at two distinct times and places, and that a single common criminal objective failed to underlie both offenses); (holding that, while offenses both involved coerced sexual intercourse with same 15-year-old girl and both occurred in same general place on the same day, the offenses were separated by a period of approximately five hours and neither act bore
State v. Bookwalter 541 N.W.2d 290 Minn. 1995
State v. Bookwalter 541 N.W.2d 290 Minn. 1995
On the other hand, we held that even though both offenses involved coerced sexual intercourse and occurred in the same general place, the five-hour time separation and lack of relationship between the two offenses rendered each a separate crime for purposes of sentencing.
State v. Naylor 474 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 1991
Distinguished State v. Naylor 474 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 1991
as a case in which a single criminal objective was achieved in the first charged offense, and then an identical criminal objective was achieved against the same victim a few hours later.
State v. Secrest 437 N.W.2d 683 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Secrest 437 N.W.2d 683 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
(defendant concurrently sentenced for three counts of second degree criminal sexual conduct for three contacts over a weekend period); (defendant consecutively sentenced on two counts of third degree criminal sexual contact for contacts five hours apart).
State v. Axford 419 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Axford 419 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
(multiple convictions did not violate Minn.Stat.
Langdon v. State 375 N.W.2d 474 Minn. 1985
Langdon v. State 375 N.W.2d 474 Minn. 1985
we held that two acts of coerced sexual intercourse with a 15-year-old girl that took place on the same day and in the same general place did not arise from a single behavioral incident because the offenses were separated by a period of approximately 5 hours and were unrelated.
Bixby v. State 344 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 1984
Distinguished Bixby v. State 344 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 1984
In so ruling, a case where the defendant persuaded a girl to accompany his wife and him to a farm, then raped her on two different occasions separated by a 5-hour interval.
State v. Herberg 324 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 1982
State v. Herberg 324 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 1982
In explaining its decision to impose multiple sentences in this case, the district court, stated its belief that the various offenses were not part of a single behavioral incident.
Stevenson v. Young 314 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 1982
Stevenson v. Young 314 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 1982
State v. Scott 304 N.W.2d 296 Minn. 1981
State v. Scott 304 N.W.2d 296 Minn. 1981
(per curiam); State v. Shevchuk, 282 Minn. 182
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: