Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Skipintheday, 717 N.W.2d 423.
-
Wallace v. State
820 N.W.2d 843
Minn. 2012
A court may impose “multiple sentences for multiple crimes arising out of a single behavioral incident if: (1) the crimes affect multiple victims; and (2) multiple sentences do not unfairly exaggerate the criminality of the defendant’s conduct.” (citations omitted).
- State v. Ferguson 808 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 2012
-
State v. Ferguson
808 N.W.2d 586
Minn. 2012
Under the multiple-victim exception, “courts are not prevented from giving a defendant multiple sentences for multiple crimes arising out of a single behavioral incident if: (1) the crimes affect multiple victims; and (2) multiple sentences do not unfairly exaggerate the criminality of the defendant’s conduct.”
- State v. Edwards 774 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2009
- State v. Edwards 774 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2009
- State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
-
State v. Yang
774 N.W.2d 539
Minn. 2009
§ 609.05[ ], who are considered to commit crimes against the victims of a principal perpetrator, even if the coconspirators do not directly harm the victims.” (citation omitted).
- State v. Franks 742 N.W.2d 7 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
-
State v. Franks
742 N.W.2d 7
Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Moreover, as a general matter, the district court is expected to “sentence the conviction that carries the highest penalty.” aff'd
- State v. Morin 736 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
-
State v. Morin
736 N.W.2d 691
Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Co., (holding that statute prohibiting obstruction of employee’s pursuit of workers’ compensation benefits applies to passive as well as active conduct); (construing accomplice-after-the-fact statute to apply to conduct that thwarts the “detection, investigation, or prosecution” of a crime), aff'd