Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Bookwalter, 541 N.W.2d 290.

153 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Longo 909 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Longo 909 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Bookwalter , , 294 (Minn. 1995).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
because [he] is motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective.” State v. Bookwalter
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Allen Olson 887 N.W.2d 692 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Allen Olson 887 N.W.2d 692 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Multiple punishment “refers not to multiple convictions but multiple sentences and any multiple sentences, including concurrent sentences, are barred if section 609.035 applies.” -94 (Minn. 1995) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Benjamin Klanderud Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Benjamin Klanderud Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Whether multiple offenses arose out of a single behavior[al] incident depends on the facts and circumstances of the particular case.”
State of Minnesota v. Scott Richard Seelye Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Scott Richard Seelye Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Maurice Williams, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. James Maurice Williams, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The purpose of [section 609.035] is to limit punishment to a single sentence where a single behavioral incident result[s] in the violation of more than one criminal statute.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Bakken 871 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kelly Jon Brothers Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Bakken 871 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In reviewing whether multiple offenses arise from a single behavioral incident under section 609.035, we consider “the factors of [a unity of] time and place and whether a defendant is motivated by a single criminal objective.”
State of Minnesota v. Kelly Jon Brothers Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(addressing a different exception to the multiple punishment bar and the imposition of punishment for the excepted crime “and the most serious [other] crime committed”).
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Paul Adams Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Paul Adams Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[I]f, as occurred in this case, a person commits a kidnapping, the person generally may be punished both for the kidnapping and for the most serious crime committed during the course of the kidnapping.”
State of Minnesota v. Michael John Mangan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael John Mangan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[T]o determine if the offenses arose from a single behavioral incident, we generally consider the factors of time and place and whether a defendant is motivated by a single criminal objective in committing two intentional crimes.” (“Offenses are part of a single course of conduct if the offenses occurred at substantially the same time and place and were motivated by a single criminal objective.”); d 486, 490 (Minn. App. 2002) (“In determinin
Eduardo Cortez, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Eduardo Cortez, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tarah Louise Fichtner 867 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tarah Louise Fichtner 867 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The purpose of [section 609.035] is to limit punishment to a single sentence where a single behavioral incident results in the violation of more than one criminal statute.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Thomas Wenthe 865 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Thomas Wenthe 865 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Mo Savoy Hicks 864 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Mo Savoy Hicks 864 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 2015
to argue that the avoidance-of-apprehension doctrine requires that the second offense must be “part of a prearranged scheme” and cannot be an "afterthought” to the initial offense.
State of Minnesota v. Peter William Warren Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Peter William Warren Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Justin Michael Fenney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Justin Michael Fenney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[C]riminal sexual conduct in the first degree require[es] the general intent to sexually penetrate the victim.”
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Cody Morrison Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Cody Morrison Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-94 (Minn. 1995) (distinguishing between prohibitions against multiple convictions and multiple sentences).
State of Minnesota v. Travis Clay Andersen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Travis Clay Andersen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Victor Dupree Whitehead Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Victor Dupree Whitehead Minn. Ct. App. 2014
–96 (Minn. 1995) (stating that focus “is primarily on the defendant’s conduct rather than the elements of the crimes committed,” when determining if acts constitute a single behavioral incident).
State of Minnesota v. Donald Ernest Beckman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Donald Ernest Beckman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Whether multiple offenses arose out of a single behavior[al] incident depends on the facts and circumstances of the particular case.”
State of Minnesota v. Alex Cennedi Closmore Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Alex Cennedi Closmore Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Whether multiple offenses arose out of a single behavior[al] incident depends on the facts and circumstances of the particular case.”
State of Minnesota v. Don Antoine Jones 848 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 2014
Distinguished State of Minnesota v. Don Antoine Jones 848 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 2014
Similarly, are distinguishable from those presented 7 here.
State v. Salyers 842 N.W.2d 28 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Salyers 842 N.W.2d 28 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
To determine whether two crimes occurred during the same behavioral incident, we conduct a case-specific inquiry to consider “the singleness of purpose of the defendant and the unity of time and of place of the behavior.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 836 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 2013
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 836 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 2013
-94 (Minn.1995) (discussing the purpose of Minn.Stat.
State v. Ferguson 808 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 2012
State v. Bauer 792 N.W.2d 825 Minn. 2011

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by