Cited by

(affirming threats-of-violence conviction because the defendant’s “contention that he lacked the requisite intent to commit terroristic threats because he was intoxicated was clearly rejected by the jury”), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

inutes in time and one block in distance and they shared the “objective of obtaining money through robbery”); (concluding that the motivation of a single criminal objective to traffic women in the sex trade , even when coupled with a broad interpretation of geographic and time relations, constituted one behavioral incident); (concluding that two burglary charges were related because of the proximity of the burglarized cabins, the timing, and the shared criminal objective).

17, 2009), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

He contends that the sta tute criminalizing threats of violence “is not meant to encompass verbal threats expressing transitory anger without intent to terrorize.” State v. Dick , -93 (Minn. App. 2002), review denied (Minn. Apr.

1, does not encompass “verbal threats expressing transitory anger without intent to terrorize.” d 486, 492-93 (Minn. App. 2002), review denied (Minn. Apr.

1; Schweppe, d at 613; 492 (Minn. App. 2002) (concluding evidence sufficient to sustain terroristic-threats conviction because it showed that the defendant was “rageful” when he threatened to find out where the officers lived, kill the officers, and “skin” an officer; he also spit at an officer, tried to bite and kick an officer

Minn. Stat. § 609.713 “is not meant to encompass verbal threats expressing transitory anger without intent to terrorize.” -93 (Minn. App. 2002), review denied (Minn. Apr.

Section 609.713 “is not meant to encompass verbal threats expressing tr ansitory anger without intent to terrorize.” State v. Dick , -93 (Minn. App. 2002), review denied (Minn. Apr.

( 6 (holding jury instructions for terroristic threats were proper even though district court failed to instruct on transitory anger)), review denied (Minn. Apr.

review denied (Minn. Apr.

threatened to kill” two people and that “[o]bviously, such threats involved a crime of violence prohibited by our homicide statutes” (quotation omitted)); (concluding that evidence was sufficient to support terroristic- threats conviction where defendant threatened to kill police officers), review denied (Minn. Apr.

er a defendant is motivated by a single criminal objective in committing two intentional crimes.” (“Offenses are part of a single course of conduct if the offenses occurred at substantially the same time and place and were motivated by a single criminal objective.”); d 486, 490 (Minn. App. 2002) (“In determining whether the offenses are part of a single behavioral incident or course of conduct, courts examine (1) ‘how the offenses were related in time and geographic proximity;’ and (2) ‘whether

Guidelines 2.D.3(a)(3) (2012); (stating that a defendant's voluntary intoxication at the time of the offense may not be relied upon as a mitigating factor to justify a downward departure); (rejecting defendant’s argument that his extreme intoxication at the time of the offenses mitigated their seriousness), review denied (Minn. Apr.

-17, 20 (Minn. 1996) (affirming denial of severance motion where defendant was charged with murder, attempted murder, and aggravated robbery after attempting to rob two different victims at gunpoint within a few blocks and minutes of each other); 490-91 (Minn. App. 2002) (affirming denial of severance motion where defendant was charged with burglarizing two different cabins located approximately one-half mile from each other, during the same early-morning time frame), review denied (Minn. Apr.