DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Mercer v. State, 290 N.W.2d 623.

33 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
    See Martinez , d at 851 ( d 623, 626 (Minn. 1980)).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    the supreme court concluded that the appellant’s convictions of possession of methamphetamine and unlawful possession of a handgun “were independent of each other, even though their commission was discovered by the police at the same time” because “nothing in the record reveals that either crime was
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    a single criminal objective.” Mercer v. State
  • 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
    (concluding that a gun-possession offense and a fleeing-police offense were not part of the same behavioral incident because both offenses could be explained 11 “without necessary reference to the [other] offense”)
  • State of Minnesota v. Victor Dupree Whitehead Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Victor Dupree Whitehead Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    (holding that the defendant could be sentenced for both the offenses of possession of a controlled substance and unlawful possession of a handgun even though the offenses were discovered at the same time because “nothing in the record reveals that either crime was in furtherance of the other or t
  • State v. Bauer 792 N.W.2d 825 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Bauer 792 N.W.2d 825 Minn. 2011
    Id.; (holding that the defendant could be sentenced for both the offenses of possession of a controlled substance and unlawful possession of a handgun even though the offenses were discovered at the same time because *830 “nothing in the record reveals that either crime was in furtherance of the other or t
  • State v. Walker 696 N.W.2d 89 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Walker 696 N.W.2d 89 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Marchbanks 632 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Marchbanks 632 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Butcher 563 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Butcher 563 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Jeter 558 N.W.2d 505 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Jeter 558 N.W.2d 505 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Martinez 530 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Martinez 530 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
    Key considerations include whether the offenses can be explained without necessary reference to each other, and whether the crimes were in furtherance of each other
  • Lundin v. State 430 N.W.2d 675 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • Lundin v. State 430 N.W.2d 675 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    It is clear that the trial court erred by not undertaking an affirmative “Olsen inquiry.” the court held that the Olsen warning was required prior to the acceptance of a plea bargain.
  • State v. Olson 372 N.W.2d 812 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Olson 372 N.W.2d 812 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    § 609.-035 is applicable); (drug possession offense and gun possession offense were independent even though their commission was discovered by police at same time).
  • State v. Fischer 354 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Fischer 354 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    In determining whether the offenses involved the same behavioral incident, we must examine whether “the underlying conduct was motivated by a desire on the defendant’s part to obtain a single criminal objective or by two or more criminal objectives.” at 529 (Minn.Ct.App.1984), *35
  • State v. Thomas 352 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Thomas 352 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    In determining whether the offenses involved the same behavioral incident when intent is the element of both offenses, we must examine whether “the underlying conduct was motivated by a desire on the defendant’s part to obtain a single criminal objective or by two or more criminal objectives.”
  • State v. Zimmerman 352 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Zimmerman 352 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Zuehlke 320 N.W.2d 79 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Zuehlke 320 N.W.2d 79 Minn. 1982
    t cases deciding whether or not two or more convictions were committed during a
  • 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: