Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Chryst, 320 N.W.2d 721.

26 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Ward’s challenge faces a presumption that the prosecutor generally has wide discretion to charge a defendant “under any statute that the defendant’s acts violate.”
Paul Joseph Welle, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
4 In general, a prosecutor has discretion to charge a defendant “under any statute that the defendant’s acts violate without regard to the penalty.” State v. Chryst , d 721, 722 (Minn. 1982).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
the prosecutor may prosecute under any statute that the defendant’s acts violate without regard to the penalty.”
State v. Richmond 730 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Richmond 730 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
See, (addressing charging under criminal-sexual-conduct versus intrafamilial-sexual-conduct statute); -23 (Minn.1982) (addressing charging under theft versus odometer-tampering statute); (addressing charging under theft versus cattle-rustling statute); Williams, d at 842-43 (addressing charging under forgery versus false-representation statute).
State v. Baxter 686 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Baxter 686 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
(“[T]he prosecutor may prosecute under any statute that the defendant’s acts violate without regard to the penalty.”).
State v. Craven 628 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Craven 628 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Weltzin 618 N.W.2d 600 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Weltzin 618 N.W.2d 600 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Absent contrary legislative intent and discrimination against a particular class of defendants, “the prosecutor may prosecute under any statute that the defendant’s acts violate without regard to the penalty.” -23 (Minn.1982) (citations omitted).
State v. Larson 605 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2000
State v. Larson 605 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2000
(noting that “basic rule is that absent legislative intent to the contrary and absent discrimination against a particular class of defendants, the prosecutor may prosecute under any statute that the defendant’s acts violate without regard to the penalty”)
State v. Evenson 554 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Evenson 554 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Danowit 497 N.W.2d 636 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Danowit 497 N.W.2d 636 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
The general rule is that, unless there is contrary legislative intent or class discrimination, the state may prosecute under any pertinent statute “without regard to the penalty.”
State v. Williams 415 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Williams 415 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
“[A]bsent legislation to the contrary and absent discrimination against a particular class of defendants,” a prosecutor has discretion to “prosecute under any statute that the defendant’s acts violate.” (prosecutor may charge under either statute for the same offense even though they have different penalties).
State v. Ulvestad 414 N.W.2d 737 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Ulvestad 414 N.W.2d 737 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(where it is proven that vehicle tampering involves an intent to defraud, the state is not confined to a prosecution for the gross misdemeanor offense of odometer tampering under Minn.Stat.
State v. Williams 396 N.W.2d 840 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Williams 396 N.W.2d 840 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Love 350 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 1984
State v. Love 350 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 1984
discussed the Kalvig case, relied upon by defendant, and the relevant principles as follows: Defendants are charged with theft by swindle for fraudulently obtaining the property of others by means of buying used cars, altering the odometers, “washing” the titles, then reselling the cars to dealers at