Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Chidester, 380 N.W.2d 595.

20 citing documents.

A19-1493 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
To be part of a single criminal objective, the offe nses in question must share an “ indivisible state of mind or coincident errors of judgment.” Johnson, d at 525 (Minn. 1966); Johnson, d at 651-52 (quoting State v. Chidester , , review denied (Minn. March 21, 1986).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
16, 1988) ; -98 (Minn. App. 1986) (affirming fourteen separate concurrent sentences for theft by false representation and aggravated forgery because the identified criminal objective, obtaining money to cover expenses and 10 prevent overdrawing an account, was too broad to constitute a single criminal objective), rev
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
25, 1991); O’Brien, d at 296-97 (concluding no unity of time and place where the state charged defendant with four counts of theft by swindle for cashing checks stolen from different victims on four separate occasions in a period of just over a month); (concluding no unity of time and place where theft and forgery spanned eight -month period) , review denied (Minn. Mar .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
When determining whether multiple offenses have arisen from a single behavioral incident, we consider the defendant’s “singleness of purpose, i.e., whether the defendant was ‘motivated by a desire to obtain a single criminal objective.’” ( review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
is too broad to be a single criminal goal within the meaning of section 609.035 where, as here, a defendant plans and executes the thefts of two differe nt checks at two separate times”); (noting that being motivated by perverse sexual desires is too broad), review denied (Minn. May 24, 1989); (holding motivation of obtaining money to cover expenses by misappropriating money was too broad), review denied (Minn. March 21, 1986).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
We also consider whether the offenses “arose from a continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct” and whether the offender “manifested an indivisible state of mind.” State v. Johnson , see also State v. Soto , State v. Chidester , review denied (Minn. Mar.
State v. Bertsch 689 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Bertsch 689 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
In determining whether multiple offenses arise from a single behavioral incident, this court must consider the defendant’s singleness of purpose, i.e., whether the defendant was “motivated by a desire to obtain a single criminal objective.” revieiv denied (Minn. Mar.
State v. Baxter 686 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Baxter 686 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State v. Johnson 653 N.W.2d 646 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Johnson 653 N.W.2d 646 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In determining whether multiple offenses arise from a single behavioral incident, this court must consider the defendant’s singleness of purpose, i.e., whether the defendant was “motivated by a desire to obtain a single criminal objective.” review denied (Minn. Mar.
State v. Medibus-Helpmobile, Inc. 481 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Medibus-Helpmobile, Inc. 481 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. O'HAGAN 474 N.W.2d 613 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. O'HAGAN 474 N.W.2d 613 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Secrest 437 N.W.2d 683 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Secrest 437 N.W.2d 683 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. O'BRIEN 429 N.W.2d 293 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. O'BRIEN 429 N.W.2d 293 Minn. Ct. App. 1988