Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite Ture v. State, 353 N.W.2d 518.
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
enses were not part of a single behavioral incident.” State v. Bakken, 3 Although appellant did not raise this issue in the district court, “[a] defendant does not waive relief from multiple sentences or convictions arising from the same behavioral incident by failing to raise the issues at the time of sentencing.” d 166, 170 (Minn. App. 1992) ().
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2023
9 (stating that an unauthorized sentence may be corrected at any time); (stating that failure to raise section 609.035 issue at sentencing did not waive the issue).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2023
t the district court “erred when it imposed sentences for counts three and five, because those offenses arose out of the same behavioral incident as count two.” Warner did not raise this issue at the time of sentencing, but Warner’s “failure to raise this issue at the time of sentencing does not constitute a waiver barring him from later raising the issue and obtaining relief.”
-
Minn. 2020
(citing multiple cases for the proposition that “the prohibition against double punishment in section 609.035 cannot be [forfeited]”).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Ture v. State , , 524 (Minn. 13 1984) (concluding that evidence of identification from “mug shots” was “unfortunate” but not prejudicial).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2019
-28 (Minn. 1979); but see Ture v. State , (concluding that testifying police officer’s reference to questioning defendant in another incident justified a curative instruction but not a mistrial).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(holding that new trial was not warranted where defendant declined to have district court give curative instruction because it would only highlight the testimony); see also Manthey, d at 506 (noting that a curative instruction can have the effect of drawing further attention to an 8 all
- State of Minnesota v. Noor Muhina Salim Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-
State of Minnesota v. Noor Muhina Salim
Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The supreme court, however, has “held that an appellant does not waive claims of multiple convictions or sentences by failing to raise the issue at the time of sentencing.” (noting that a defendant cannot waive objection to Double Jeopardy violations).
- State of Minnesota v. Devon Derrick Parker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-
State of Minnesota v. Devon Derrick Parker
Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 518, 525 (Minn. 1984) (stating that justification for an upward sentencing departure is dependent upon “whether [the] defendant committed the crime in question .
- State of Minnesota v. Ian Christopher Mitchell 881 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-
State of Minnesota v. Ian Christopher Mitchell
881 N.W.2d 558
Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“[The supreme court] ha[s] held that an appellant does not waive claims of multiple convictions or sentences by failing to raise the issue at the time of sentencing.” ()).
- State of Minnesota v. Nammoun Khampanya Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-
State of Minnesota v. Nammoun Khampanya
Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 661, 675-76 (Minn. 1998) (ruling that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying a mistrial motion when the court took steps to minimize the prejudicial effect of improper statements); (upholding denial of mistrial motion when jury received curative instruction after a witness referred to defendant’s other criminal conduct).
- Ahmed Shire Ali v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-
Distinguished
Ahmed Shire Ali v. State of Minnesota
Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“[D]efendant simply had not gone far enough to distinguish his conduct from that of any other violent rapist’s conduct at an identical stage.”).
- State of Minnesota v. Sean David Kilbo Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- State of Minnesota v. Sean David Kilbo Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- State of Minnesota v. Donald Ernest Beckman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- State of Minnesota v. Donald Ernest Beckman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- State v. Yaritz 791 N.W.2d 138 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
-
State v. Yaritz
791 N.W.2d 138
Minn. Ct. App. 2010
See, 523 (Minn.1984) (affirming a more-than-double dura-tional departure where the defendant forced the victim to commit fellatio and to submit to cunnilingus and sexual intercourse); -39 (Minn.App.2008) (holding that the variety of sexual acts to which the victim was exposed w
- State v. Edwards 774 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2009
-
State v. Edwards
774 N.W.2d 596
Minn. 2009
4 (concluding that whether an upward departure is justified “depends on whether defendant committed the crime in question ...
- Spann v. State 740 N.W.2d 570 Minn. 2007
- Spann v. State 740 N.W.2d 570 Minn. 2007
- State v. Osborne 715 N.W.2d 436 Minn. 2006
-
State v. Osborne
715 N.W.2d 436
Minn. 2006
State v. White, 300 Minn. 99, 105-106
- State v. Manthey 711 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 2006
-
State v. Manthey
711 N.W.2d 498
Minn. 2006
-28 (Minn.1979); (finding that testifying police officer’s reference to questioning defendant in another incident justified a curative instruction but not a mistrial).
- State v. Johnson 653 N.W.2d 646 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
-
State v. Johnson
653 N.W.2d 646
Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Id.; , (Minn.1984) (holding defendant’s failure to raise the multiple sentencing issue at the time of sentencing does not constitute a waiver barring him from later raising the issue and obtaining relief); (vacating defendant’s sentence for assault in the third degree und
- State v. Spaeth 552 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1996
- State v. Spaeth 552 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1996
- State v. Clark 486 N.W.2d 166 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
- State v. Clark 486 N.W.2d 166 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
- State v. Elvin 481 N.W.2d 571 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
-
State v. Elvin
481 N.W.2d 571
Minn. Ct. App. 1992
See DeWald, -04 (similar incident occurring three weeks after charged offense); -22 (Minn.1984) (similar incidents occurring within days after charged offense).
- State v. Griffith 480 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
-
State v. Griffith
480 N.W.2d 347
Minn. Ct. App. 1992
(departure justified on grounds that the defendant there had ejaculated into the victim’s mouth).
- State v. Blair 474 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
-
State v. Blair
474 N.W.2d 630
Minn. Ct. App. 1991
for rev. denied (Minn. July 17, 1985) (this court “will not determine whether a conviction should be vacated unless the issue is first presented to the trial court”) (-23 (Minn.1984); ).
- State v. Skinner 450 N.W.2d 648 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
- State v. Skinner 450 N.W.2d 648 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
- Jackson v. State 447 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
- Jackson v. State 447 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
- State v. Axford 419 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
- State v. Axford 419 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
- State v. Frank 416 N.W.2d 744 Minn. Ct. App. 1987