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. Goodridge, 352 N.W.2d 384.

39 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    This law applies when multiple convictions are “for the same offense against the same victim on the basis of the same act.”
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    This law applies when multiple convictions are “for the same offense against the same victim on the basis of the same act.”
  • Tyler Douglas Flantz, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    tutes sections 609.04 and 609.035.1 We disagree and conclude that neither statutory prohibition applies because Flantz admitted tha t the images corresponding to count s four and five depicted two different children .2 Section 609.04 prohibits a district court from convicting a defendant “twice for the same offense against the same victim on the basis of the same act.” State v. Goodridge , .
  • Lannon Lavar Burdunice, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    (discussing section 609.04).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    Under section 609.04, “a defendant can not be convicted twice for the same offense against the same victim on the basis of the same act.” State v. Goodridge , (emphasis added).
  • State v. Lopez-Ramos 913 N.W.2d 695 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
  • State v. Lopez-Ramos 913 N.W.2d 695 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    679 F.3d 1131 , 1140 (9th Cir. 2012) ; see also State v. Goodridge , , 388 n.2 (Minn. 1984) ("[A] party cannot object to his failure to have a chance to cross-examine himself.").
  • State of Minnesota v. Terry Lee West Minn. Ct. App. 2017
  • State of Minnesota v. Terry Lee West Minn. Ct. App. 2017
  • State of Minnesota v. Cheng Pao Vue Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Cheng Pao Vue Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    Based on that statute, “a defendant cannot be convicted twice for the same offense against the same victim on the basis of the same act.”
  • State of Minnesota v. Jerome Deshawn Misters Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Jerome Deshawn Misters Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State v. McKenzie 532 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 1995
  • State v. McKenzie 532 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 1995
    § 609.05 (1994); State v. Matousek, 287 Minn. 344
  • Hoagland v. State 518 N.W.2d 531 Minn. 1994
  • Hoagland v. State 518 N.W.2d 531 Minn. 1994
    This *533 -87 (Minn.1984): During the evening of November 19, 1982, defendant [Goodridge] socialized with three friends—Mitchell Pierce [sic-Peirce], Leland Mark Hoagland and Troy Palthen.
  • State v. Shoop 441 N.W.2d 475 Minn. 1989
  • State v. Shoop 441 N.W.2d 475 Minn. 1989
    -88 (Minn.1984), -02 (Minn.1980).
  • Lundin v. State 430 N.W.2d 675 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • Lundin v. State 430 N.W.2d 675 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    Under the law, “person[s] may be held criminally liable as an aider and abettor without actively participating in the overt act constituting the primary offense; moreover, criminal intent may be inferred from * * * conduct before and after the offenses are committed.” (emphasis added); (holding corporate officer liable as aider and abettor in filing of false reports even though reports were not authorized or approved of by officers).
  • State v. Merrill 428 N.W.2d 361 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Merrill 428 N.W.2d 361 Minn. 1988
  • State v. England 409 N.W.2d 262 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. England 409 N.W.2d 262 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. McBroom 394 N.W.2d 806 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. McBroom 394 N.W.2d 806 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    “[Cjriminal intent may be inferred from presence, companionship and conduct before and after the offenses are committed.”
  • State v. Vance 392 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Vance 392 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Blegen 387 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Blegen 387 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Weaver 386 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Weaver 386 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Hodges 384 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Hodges 384 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    Under section 609.04, “a defendant cannot be convicted twice for the same offense against the same victim on the basis of the same act.” (emphasis added).
  • State v. O'BRIEN 364 N.W.2d 901 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. O'BRIEN 364 N.W.2d 901 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    “Under section 609.-04, a defendant cannot be convicted twice for the same offense against the same victim on the basis of the same act.”
  • State v. Peirce 364 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Peirce 364 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 1985