Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Cole, 542 N.W.2d 43.

156 citing documents.

Adrian Dominic Riley v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2025
Adrian Dominic Riley v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2025
We have held that “when crimes are committed against different persons in the same incident, the district court has discretion to impose one sentence per victim so long as such sentencing does not exaggerate the criminality of the defendant’s conduct.” (holding that the decision to impose three consecutive life sentences for first degree murder was within the discretion of the district court under Minn. Stat. § 609.15 and subject to appellate review only to ensure consecutive sentences we
State of Minnesota v. Travis Clay Andersen Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See Griffin, d at 261-62 (Spreigl evidence); (jury instruction).
State of Minnesota v. Lionell Bailey Minn. Ct. App. 2025
1e(a)(3); see also 9 -52 (Minn. 1996) (noting that the recklessness element refers to the actor’s “conscious disregard” of the likely result of his action, and is not inconsistent with a finding that a person also had the specific intent to cause the result of his action).
State of Minnesota v. Joe Cecil Sistrunk Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“Verdicts are legally inconsistent when proof of the elements of one offense negates a necessary element of another offense.”
Thomas Robert Tichich v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2024
Thomas Robert Tichich v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2024
B. “Verdicts are legally inconsistent when proof of the elements of one offense negates a necessary element of another offense.”
State of Minnesota v. John Michael Ryan Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. John Michael Ryan Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“Verdicts are legally inconsistent when proof of the elements of one offense negates a necessary element of another offense.”
State of Minnesota v. Christopher James Colgrove Minn. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Christopher James Colgrove Minn. 2023
14 Hale, d at 706 (stating that the evidence “d[id] not compel the conclusion that defendant was incapable of forming the requisite specific intent to kill”); –50 (Minn. 1996) (concluding that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s conclusion that the defendant was capable of forming the intent to kill despite the defendant’s claims that he “[drank] beer, used methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin, Dilaudid and smoked marijuana” the day of the murder).
State of Minnesota v. Earley Romero Blevins Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Verdicts are legally inconsistent only ‘when proof of the elements of one offense negates a necessary element of another offense.’” ().
Jesse Lee Helget (A20-1036) v. Commissioner of Public Safety, State of Minnesota, vs. Jesse Lee Helget (A22-0103) Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Matthew Prescott Beale v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Allen Hitchcock Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Jordan Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Oscar Garcia-Espino Minn. Ct. App. 2020
To be legally inconsistent, a defendant must be convicted on two (or more) offenses, and “proof of the elements of one offense negates a necessary element of another offense.” -52 (Minn. 1996).
State of Minnesota v. Angel Torrejon Ramirez Minn. Ct. App. 2020
A reviewing court “looks to the imposition of sentences in other cases to determine whether sentencing exaggerates the criminality of conduct.” (d 895, 902 (Minn. 1992)).
Raymond Cortez Steward, Minn. 2020
Verdicts are legally inconsistent only “when proof of the elements of one offense negates a necessary element of another offense.”
State of Minnesota v. Eric Wilson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“Verdict s are legally inconsistent when proof of the elements of one offense negates a necessary element of another offense.”
State of Minnesota v. Lindsey Damien Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Portia Renee Glover Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Brock William Fredin Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Hall 931 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 2019
State v. Hall 931 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 2019
at 540 (Hooten, J., dissenting) (citing State v. Cole , , 50-51 (Minn. 1996) ; State v. Moore , , 108 (Minn. 1989) ; State v. Mytych , 292 Minn. 248 , , 282-83 (1972) ; State v. Walker , 279 Minn. 441 , , 508-10 (1968) ; State v. Staples , 126 Minn. 396 , 148 N.W.
State of Minnesota v. Randal Edward Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“[W]hen crimes are committed against different persons in the same incident, the district court has discretion to impose one sentence per victim so long as such sentencing does not exaggerate the criminality of the defendant’s conduct.”
State of Minnesota v. DeAngelo Terrell Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Stay 923 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Stay 923 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Cole , , 51-52 (Minn. 1996).
State of Minnesota v. James Ernest Piere Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Munt v. State 920 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 2018
Munt v. State 920 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 2018
See, e.g. , State v. Bakken , , 270-72 (Minn. 2016) ; State v. Cole , , 53 (Minn. 1996) ; State v. Norregaard , , 449 (Minn. 1986).
State of Minnesota v. Lonny Duane Lundgren Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Likewise, “[t]he refusal to give a requested jury instruction lies within the discretion of the district court and no error results if no abuse of discretion is shown.”
State v. Hall 915 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Hall 915 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The state, relying on State v. Cole , argues that the third-degree murder statute must be read along with the entire regime of homicide statutes and that the language "without intent to effect the death of any person" is not an element of the crime but instead relieves the state of the burden of proving specific intent without requiring affi
State of Minnesota v. Justen Paul Linskie Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Majinieke Vasha Thompson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Antonio Xavier Daniels v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Jude Schnagl Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Clint Scott Bearce Minn. Ct. App. 2017
15 necessary element of another offense.”
State v. Christensen 901 N.W.2d 648 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Christensen 901 N.W.2d 648 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-35 (Minn. 2006); Legal inconsistency occurs only “when proof of the elements of one offense negates a necessary element of another offense.”
State of Minnesota v. David Arthur Christensen Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Legal inconsistency occurs only “when proof of the elements of one offense negates a necessary element of another offense.” State v. Cole
State of Minnesota v. Fernell Damon Nickson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Robert Sam Raisch, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
second-degree 17 intentional murder and second-degree felony murder are not legally inconsistent, for no element of one crime negates a necessary element of the other.”
State of Minnesota v. Justin Dillard Thomas 890 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Timothy Ayman Bakdash v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Timothy Ayman Bakdash v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Verdicts are legally inconsistent when proof of the elements of one offense negates a necessary element of another offense.”
State of Minnesota v. Tommy Ray Morgan, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tommy Ray Morgan, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016