DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Banks, 331 N.W.2d 491.

42 citing documents.

  • Minn. 2023
    –07 (Minn. 2018); (holding that possession of a firearm by an ineligible person is a continuing offense); (holding that “concealing or possessing stolen goods” is a continuing offense); (holding that “[e]scape is
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
  • State v. Black 919 N.W.2d 704 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
  • State v. Black 919 N.W.2d 704 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    Our decision whether Black's convictions were based on offenses that occurred during a single behavioral incident is influenced by *713
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
  • State v. Washington 908 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 2018
  • State v. Washington 908 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 2018
    See e.g., State v. Banks , , 494 (Minn. 1983) (holding that possession of a firearm by an ineligible person is a continuing offense); State v. Lawrence , , 253 (Minn. 1981) (holding that "concealing or possessing stolen goods" is a continuing offense); State v. Burnett , 292 Minn. 484 , , 189 (1972) (holding that "
  • State of Minnesota v. August Latimothy Fleming 883 N.W.2d 790 Minn. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. August Latimothy Fleming 883 N.W.2d 790 Minn. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Bakken 883 N.W.2d 264 Minn. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Bakken 883 N.W.2d 264 Minn. 2016
    (concluding that a gun-possession offense and a fleeing-police offense were not part of the same behavioral incident because both offenses could be explained 11 “without necessary reference to the [other] offense”)
  • State v. Jackson 615 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Jackson 615 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    In deciding whether two crimes are part of a single behavioral incident, the focus is on the time and place of the crimes, with the additional consideration of “whether the segments of conduct involved were motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective.” (“In determining whether thei*e should be separate trials for separate charges, we look to how the offenses were related in time and geographic proximity and at whether the actor was motivated by a single criminal objective.”).
  • State v. Gould 562 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Soto 562 N.W.2d 299 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Soto 562 N.W.2d 299 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Gould 562 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Jeter 558 N.W.2d 505 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Jeter 558 N.W.2d 505 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Bishop 545 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Bishop 545 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Bookwalter 541 N.W.2d 290 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Martinez 530 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Martinez 530 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
    Key considerations include whether the offenses can be explained without necessary reference to each other, and whether the crimes were in furtherance of each other
  • State v. Nordby 448 N.W.2d 878 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • State v. Nordby 448 N.W.2d 878 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • State v. Holland 421 N.W.2d 382 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Holland 421 N.W.2d 382 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Parr 414 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Parr 414 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    the supreme court stated: [0]ne must analyze the facts and determine whether the offenses arose out of a continuing and uninterrupted course of conduct, manifesting an indivisible state of mind or conincident errors of judgment.
  • State v. Perez 404 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Perez 404 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Hatton 389 N.W.2d 229 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Hatton 389 N.W.2d 229 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Langdon v. State 371 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Langdon v. State 371 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    “In deciding whether two or more intentional crimes were part of the same course of conduct, one must focus on the factors of time and place and also consider whether the segments of conduct involved were motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective.” (citing State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 404 , ).
  • State v. Andersen 370 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Andersen 370 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Southard 360 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Southard 360 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Wurst 350 N.W.2d 482 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Wurst 350 N.W.2d 482 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    In determining whether the violation of traffic offenses involve the same behavioral incident we must examine whether the offenses “ ‘[arose] out of a continuing and uninterrupted course of conduct, manifesting an indivisible state of mind or coincident errors of judgment.’ ” ().