Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Dudrey, 330 N.W.2d 719.

25 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Minn. Stat. § 609.04; see also State v. Dudrey , (“We have interpreted section 609.04 as preventing the state from convicting a defendant twice of the same offense or of a greater and a lesser-included offense on the basis of the same act or course of conduct.”).
State v. Patzold 917 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Patzold 917 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Dudrey , , 721 (Minn. 1983) (interpreting Minn. Stat. § 609.04 (1982) ) (emphasis added).
State of Minnesota v. Wilfred Carl Hudson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Wilfred Carl Hudson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Arthur Charles Huffman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Arthur Charles Huffman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Section 609.04 “prevent[s] the state from convicting a defendant twice of the same offense or of a greater and a lesser-included offense on the basis of the same act or course of conduct.”
State v. Mitjans 408 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1987
State v. Mitjans 408 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1987
State v. Brown 406 N.W.2d 530 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Brown 406 N.W.2d 530 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
The other facts here include multiple forms of penetration, vulnerability due to mental deficiencies, and appellant’s taking advantage of his position of authority and trust—he was supposed to be babysitting T.T., a niece of his girlfriend.
State v. Hall 392 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Hall 392 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Branson v. State 368 N.W.2d 436 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Branson v. State 368 N.W.2d 436 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Rohda 358 N.W.2d 39 Minn. 1984
State v. Rohda 358 N.W.2d 39 Minn. 1984
State v. Rose 353 N.W.2d 565 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Rose 353 N.W.2d 565 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Ture v. State 353 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1984
Ture v. State 353 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1984
Kilcoyne v. State 344 N.W.2d 394 Minn. 1984
Kilcoyne v. State 344 N.W.2d 394 Minn. 1984
State v. Saxton 331 N.W.2d 240 Minn. 1983
State v. Saxton 331 N.W.2d 240 Minn. 1983
However, we rejected this argument and held that only one such conviction should be permitted in such a situation.