DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

153 citing documents.

  • State v. Bauer 792 N.W.2d 825 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Rivers 787 N.W.2d 206 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Rivers 787 N.W.2d 206 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    “For example, when arson is the means by which the defendant commits a murder, the defendant may not be sentenced both for the murder and for the arson, because the time and place of the offenses coincide and because the defendant is motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective.”
  • State v. Bauer 776 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Bauer 776 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Edwards 774 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Edwards 774 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Kebaso 713 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Kebaso 713 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 2006
    The purpose of section 609.035 is to “ensure[ ] that punishment is commensurate with the crime committed.”
  • State v. Mahr 701 N.W.2d 286 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Mahr 701 N.W.2d 286 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Levie 695 N.W.2d 619 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Levie 695 N.W.2d 619 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    294 n. 2 (Minn.1995) ("Minnesota Statute section 609.04 generally governs the question of whether multiple convictions, as opposed to multiple sentences, are permitted.”); , 476 n. 1 (Minn. 1985) ("The issue of when multiple convictions based on a single act or behavioral inci
  • State v. Bertsch 689 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Bertsch 689 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Heath 685 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Heath 685 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Papadakis 643 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Papadakis 643 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    We agree with the state that appellant’s conduct was “single behavior” rather than “single act.” ‘Whether multiple offenses arose from a single behavioral incident depends on the facts and circumstances of a particular case.” (citations omitted).
  • State v. Lingwall 637 N.W.2d 311 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Lingwall 637 N.W.2d 311 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Richardson 633 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Richardson 633 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Marchbanks 632 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Marchbanks 632 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    (noting single behavioral incident is result of single motivation directed toward single criminal goal).
  • State v. Reimer 625 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Reimer 625 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    The question of whether multiple offenses arose out of the same behavioral incident “depends on the facts and circumstances of the particular case.”
  • State v. Barnes 618 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Barnes 618 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Jackson 615 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Jackson 615 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    (holding that sexual assault and attempted murder were not part of a single behavioral incident where they occurred in or near the victim’s van at two distinct times and places, and that a single common criminal objective failed to underlie both offenses); (Minn
  • State v. Williams 608 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Williams 608 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 2000
    is strong support for the trial court’s conclusion.
  • State v. Kates 598 N.W.2d 693 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Kates 598 N.W.2d 693 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Sanders 598 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Sanders 598 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1999
    See Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines ILF.; (citing Norris, d at 70 ).
  • State v. Brown 597 N.W.2d 299 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Brown 597 N.W.2d 299 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Peou 579 N.W.2d 471 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Peou 579 N.W.2d 471 Minn. 1998
    However, relying upon this court’s Peou urges this court to conclude that the evidence supported only a jury determination that he committed robbery as an “afterthought.” In Bookwalter , we held that no “single criminal objective” was demonstrated in a case where the defendant raped the victim and later attempted to murder her.
  • State v. Lundberg 575 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • State v. Lundberg 575 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
    (concluding multiple sentencing allowed if there were multiple victims, as long as imposition of multiple sentences does not unfairly exaggerate criminality of defendant’s conduct).
  • State v. Whittaker 568 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Whittaker 568 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Spears 560 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Spears 560 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
    State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 404
  • State v. Bowen 560 N.W.2d 709 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Bowen 560 N.W.2d 709 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
    (sexual assault and attempted murder, committed during continuous automobile trip but in separate locations, were not part of same behavioral incident).
  • State v. Butterfield 555 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1996