Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. McCauley, 820 N.W.2d 577.

34 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Michael Adam Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Michael Adam Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2024
rev. denied (Minn. Oct.24, 2012).
State of Minnesota v. Zachary Phillip Harding Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Michael Romeo Geraci Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“[T]he constitutionality of a statute cannot be challenged for the first time on appeal.” d 577, 583 (Minn. App. 2012).
State of Minnesota v. Henry Albert Allison, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In analyzing whether multiple offenses arise from a single behavioral incident, we consider “whether the conduct (1) shares a unity of time and place and (2) was motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Clinton Roosevelt Delaney Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Jesse Nikolas Rowland Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. McCauley , (comparing criminal objectives related to possessing and disseminating child pornography), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Jonathon Ross Rudquist Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“[A] defendant cannot be convicte d of both dissemination and possession of a pornographic work unless the offenses constitut e separate criminal acts.” State v. McCauley , (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Michael Karl Berzins Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. McCauley , review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Samantha Dione Zornes Minn. Ct. App. 2018
When the facts are not in dispute, as is the case here, we review de novo “whether multiple offenses form part of a single behavioral act.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Deddrick Terrell Whitaker Minn. Ct. App. 2018
1 (2016), provides that “if a person’s conduct constitutes more than one offense under the laws of this state, the person may be punished for only one of the offenses.” When the facts are not in dispute, this court reviews de novo “whether multiple offenses form part of a single behavioral act.” review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Alan Bergeron Minn. Ct. App. 2018
When the facts are not in dispute, as is the case here, this court reviews de novo “whether multiple offenses form part of a single behavioral act.” d 577, 591 (Minn. App. 2012), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Scott Sundblad Minn. Ct. App. 2018
11 failing to notify authorities , and that imposing sentences for both counts is a violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.035 (2012).11 When the facts are not in dispute, as is the case here, this court reviews de novo “whether multiple offenses form pa rt of a single behavioral act.” review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Abimbola Bakare Minn. Ct. App. 2018
-84 (Minn. App. 2012) (refusing to consider an appellant’s argument that the statute under which he was convicted is void for vagueness because appellant did not raise the issue in district court), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Scott Marlin Morey Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. David Martin Arth Minn. Ct. App. 2017
4(a) (2008); , review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Benjamin Klanderud Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Benjamin Klanderud Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Marvin George Penn Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Marvin George Penn Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Troy Gary Benjamin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Troy Gary Benjamin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Sedne Bonitaz Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Sedne Bonitaz Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Luke Brandon Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Luke Brandon Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Bakken 871 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Bakken 871 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“a visual depiction” and a “computer-generated image.” Each was, therefore, a separate “work.” Minnesota caselaw applying the statute also supports this interpretation of “pornographic work” and “computer-generated image.” (affirming 23 convictions for possession of child pornography on a single computer); (affirming 20 convictions for possession of child pornography on a single computer), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Charles Robert Schwartz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Charles Robert Schwartz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-86 (Minn. App. 2012) (“We cannot logically separate this mens rea requirement for the content and character of a work from the actual possession of the work.
Eduardo Cortez, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Eduardo Cortez, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Devon Scott Martin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Devon Scott Martin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
review denied (Minn. Oct.