Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Bangert v. State, 282 N.W.2d 540.

108 citing documents.

State v. Humes 581 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 1998
State v. Griese 565 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 1997
State v. Griese 565 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 1997
See Netland, d at 329-30 (concluding with “no hesitancy” that there was sufficient evidence of premeditation when defendant took knives from the victims’ kitchen, walked to the victims’ bedroom and stabbed them); (upholding jury’s finding of premeditation when the crime required the defendant to “procure the rifle from its location in the house, walk down the hallway to the [vie- *430 tims’] bedroom, raise the rifle, take careful aim, and pull the trigger three times”)
State v. Cooper 561 N.W.2d 175 Minn. 1997
State v. Cooper 561 N.W.2d 175 Minn. 1997
(“[Defendant’s] actions in going into the kitchen, obtaining the knife, returning to the bedroom, and stabbing the victim numerous times reasonably imply that he had determined to kill [the victim].”).
State v. Willis 559 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 1997
State v. Willis 559 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 1997
Consecutive life sentences for first-degree murder are permissible so long as they “are commensurate with culpability and not an exaggeration of defendant’s criminality.” ().
State v. Esler 553 N.W.2d 61 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Esler 553 N.W.2d 61 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
(factors to consider in determining whether multiple violations constitute a single behavioral incident are unity of time, place, and criminal objective).
State v. Wilson 539 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1995
State v. Wilson 539 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1995
When reviewing the imposition of consecutive life sentences, this court considers whether consecutive sentences “are commensurate with culpability and not an exaggeration of defendant’s criminality.”
State v. Ford 539 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 1995
State v. Ford 539 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 1995
Imposition of consecutive sentences must be “commensurate with culpability and not an exaggeration of defendant’s criminality.” (citation omitted).
State v. Netland 535 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1995
State v. Netland 535 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1995
For example, we held the jury’s conclusion that the defendant acted with premeditation was reasonable where the defendant, in order to kill the victims in bed, “had to procure the rifle from its location in the house, walk down the hallway to the [victims’] bedroom, raise the rifle, take careful aim, and pull the trig
State v. Chao Yang 533 N.W.2d 81 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Roan 532 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1995
State v. Roan 532 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1995
State v. Ouk 516 N.W.2d 180 Minn. 1994
State v. Ouk 516 N.W.2d 180 Minn. 1994
When reviewing imposition of consecutive life sentences, this court considers whether consecutive sentences are “commensurate with culpability and not an exaggeration of defendant’s criminality.”
State v. Ferguson 501 N.W.2d 629 Minn. 1993
State v. Ferguson 501 N.W.2d 629 Minn. 1993
See, -31 (Minn.1978); -57 (Minn.1988).
State v. Swanson 498 N.W.2d 435 Minn. 1993
State v. Swanson 498 N.W.2d 435 Minn. 1993
Furthermore, in deciding whether to impose consecutive sentences, this court considers whether consecutive sentences “are commensurate with culpability and not an exaggeration of defendant’s criminality.”
State v. Miller 488 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 1992
State v. Miller 488 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 1992
Consecutive life sentences for first degree murder are permissible so long as they “are commensurate with culpability and not an exaggeration of defendant’s criminality.”
State v. Jobe 486 N.W.2d 407 Minn. 1992
State v. Jobe 486 N.W.2d 407 Minn. 1992
1398 , 113 L.Ed.2d 453 (1991)
State v. Brom 463 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1990
State v. Brom 463 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1990
§ 609.15 (1990); (construing Minn.Stat.
State v. O'BRIEN 429 N.W.2d 293 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. O'BRIEN 429 N.W.2d 293 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Axford 419 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Axford 419 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Flores 418 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1988
State v. Flores 418 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1988
we said there was sufficient evidence of premeditation where the defendant obtained a rifle in one part of the house, carried it to the bedroom, and shot the victim three times.
State v. Andrews 388 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 1986
State v. Andrews 388 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 1986
State v. Rock 380 N.W.2d 211 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Rock 380 N.W.2d 211 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
(sentence of life-time probation for first-degree murder was contrary to statute and invalid).
State v. Stafford 368 N.W.2d 364 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Stafford 368 N.W.2d 364 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
: The present case involves simply an error of law in sentencing.
O'LEARY v. State 368 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
O'LEARY v. State 368 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
(court on reconviction or resentencing may not impose a harsher sentence than originally imposed).
Kost v. State 356 N.W.2d 680 Minn. 1984
Kost v. State 356 N.W.2d 680 Minn. 1984
In State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252 , we stated, in part, that “where direct appeal has once been taken, all matters raised therein, and all claims known but not raised, will not be considered upon a subsequent petition for post-conviction relief.” we indicated that the post-conviction remedy statute should be interpreted to provide relief whenever a defendant produces evidence of material facts, not theretofore heard, that require a vacation of the conviction or sentence in the interests of
State v. Fratzke 354 N.W.2d 402 Minn. 1984
State v. Fratzke 354 N.W.2d 402 Minn. 1984
State v. Ture 353 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 1984
State v. Ture 353 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 1984