Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Mullen, 577 N.W.2d 505.

32 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Troy Lee Rorman Minn. Ct. App. 2025
We analyze “the time and place of the offenses and whether the defendant ‘was motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective.’” (quoting Johnson, d at 525.).
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Don Boswell Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Fredi Amilcar Sun Chajon Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“The phrase ‘with intent to’ is commonly used by the Legislature to express a specific-intent requirement.” –09 () .
State of Minnesota v. Sherif Mohamed Abdeltawwab Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Sherif Mohamed Abdeltawwab Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Ordinarily, the “determination of whether two or more crimes are part of a single behavioral incident requires examination of the time and place of the offenses and whether the defendant was motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective.” State v. 10 Mullen, (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Ishmel Barry McReynolds Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See, e.g., Franks, d at 76 (underlying conduct for stalking conviction was writing vaguely threatening letters, but defendant had previously threatened to kill victim while dragg ing her around house looking for shotgun) ; State v. Mullen , ( underlying conduct included the defendant breaking victim’s window and threatening to kill her); State v. Stillday , (underly ing conduct included evidence that defendant punched victim in the face several times and caused the victim to lose consciousness)
State of Minnesota v. Lavelle Darnell Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2020
15 a single behavioral incident, but not vacating the convictions for both offenses); -12 (Minn. 1998) (pursuant to section 609.035, vacating one of the two imposed sentences for criminal damage to property and exhibiting a pattern of harassing conduct because these offenses arose out of a single behavioral incident, but not vacating the convictions for these offenses); State v. Herberg, 324 N.W
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Marlin Vosburg Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Safety , see also State v. Mullen , (stating that an appellate court’s determinati on that a statute is uncons titutional renders the statute inoperative).
State of Minnesota (A18-1655) (A18-1490) v. Brian Joseph Andvik (A18-1490) (A18-1655) Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The district court found that Andvik’s criminal objective was the same when he committed both offenses: “to subjugate, dominate, belittle, and break the victim down.” Yet “[b]road statements of criminal purpose do not unify separate acts into a single course of conduct.” Jones, d at 533; (holding that acts “motivated by a continuous intent to harass” a particular person spanning a few hours constituted a single criminal purpose).
Dennis Lougee, et al v. Craig Eugene Pehrson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In support of his argument, as well as a pair of criminal cases, State v. Mullen
State of Minnesota v. Jamari Dishion Cook Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Cory Leo Kellermann Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Don Antoine Jones 848 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Don Antoine Jones 848 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 2014
State v. Fleck 810 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2012
State v. Fleck 810 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2012
State v. Holmes 778 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 2010
State v. Holmes 778 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 2010
511 (Minn.1998) (concluding that first-degree burglary with assault and fifth-degree assault convictions and sentences were allowed by Minn.Stat.
State v. Franks 742 N.W.2d 7 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Franks 742 N.W.2d 7 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
(stating that statute requires only general intent).
Cuypers v. State 711 N.W.2d 100 Minn. 2006
Cuypers v. State 711 N.W.2d 100 Minn. 2006
his defense, and so that he is protected from subsequent prosecution for the same offense.” , 510 n. 6 (Minn.1998) (quoting State v. Wurdemann, 265 Minn. 92, 94 , (alterations in original)).
Fedziuk v. Commissioner of Public Safety 696 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2005
Fedziuk v. Commissioner of Public Safety 696 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2005
State v. Johnson 653 N.W.2d 646 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Johnson 653 N.W.2d 646 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
McCollum v. State 640 N.W.2d 610 Minn. 2002
McCollum v. State 640 N.W.2d 610 Minn. 2002
To be sure, “[t]o support a conviction, an indictment ‘must fairly apprise the defendant of the charge brought against him, * * * [so] that he might properly prepare his defense, and so that he is protected from subsequent prosecution for the same offense.’ ” , 510 n. 6 (Minn.1998) (quoting State v. Wurdemann, 265 Minn. 92, 94 , ).
State v. Stevenson 637 N.W.2d 857 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Stevenson 637 N.W.2d 857 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Neely 604 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Neely 604 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(quoting McGuire v. C & L Restaurant, Inc., ).