Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hodges, 386 N.W.2d 709.

44 citing documents.

Tyler Douglas Flantz, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(concluding that the Blockburger rule4 does not apply “if the greater offense is against one victim and the included offense is committed against a different victim,” and explaining that the “exception is set out in both section 609.04 and section 609.035”); s ee also, e.g. State v. Hodges , (observing that for both sections 609.04 and 609.035, “the multiple-victim exception clearly permits three assault convictions if a burglar assaults three different people after entering a house”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
To attempt to convince us otherwise, Lindeman cites to a case where the Minnesota Supreme Court reasoned that it could not allow three burglary convictions “simply because three people were present in the house when it was burglarized.” State v. Hodges
Dametrius Ratheal Adrian Moore, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
To be sure, we discussed the elements of the crime , but we explicitly rejected the defendant’s argument that the multiple-victim rule applies only when the elements include 3 for this proposition.
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
Dean Aaron Anderson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
aff’d as modified, d 709 (Minn. 1986).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“[F]or the pur pose of section 609.04, the burglarious entry of one dwelling should just ify only one burglary conviction.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
-11 (Minn. 1986) (concluding that section 609.04 bars a defendant from being convicted of three burglaries based on his single unlawful entry into one dwelling).
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
n.1, 182–83 (Minn. App. 1986), aff’d as modified
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Bakken 871 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Bakken 871 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-82 (Minn. App. 1986), aff’d
State of Minnesota v. Joel Asiago Nyansikera Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joel Asiago Nyansikera Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Wayne Eilertson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Wayne Eilertson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See, (considering the offense’s classification under “Damage or Trespass to Property” heading); Thompson v. Comm’r of Pub.
State v. Beane 840 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Beane 840 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
However, the question of whether a
State v. Ferguson 808 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 2012
State v. Ferguson 808 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 2012
Just as entry into a single building occupied by three persons does not support three separate burglary convictions, a reckless discharge of a firearm at a single building occupied by eight people does not support eight separate drive-by shooting at an occupied building convictions.
In Re Buckmaster 755 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
In Re Buckmaster 755 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
concluding that settlement agreement "was not admissible to impeach the witness because it was not relevant to show either an admission of liability or the witness's hostility"); (stating that a party "may not misuse [the impeachment rule] to introduce hearsay which is otherwise inadmissible in the guise of impeachment"), aff'd as modified
State v. Jackson 749 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 2008
State v. Jackson 749 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 2008
The crime of burglary “carries with it some special risks to life and is not therefore purely a property offense.”
State v. Bertsch 689 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Bertsch 689 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
based on the same act,” and (2) to bar “the prosecutor from exaggerating the criminality of the defendant’s conduct by obtaining two convictions of the same offense simply because the defendant’s single act violated two different provisions of the same statute.”
State v. Lundberg 575 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Lundberg 575 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
(affirming imposition of consecutive sentences for convictions of burglary, kidnapping, and first-degree murder against different persons); (holding multiple victim exception does not allow three burglary convictions merely because three people were present in house when it was burglarized, but noting burglary is not “purely a property offense,” and sentences for other offenses committed within dwelling against other victims are permissib
State v. Rodriguez 505 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Rodriguez 505 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Aggravating factors may include: the victim’s vulnerability due to age and infirmity, Minn.Sent.Guidelines II.D.2.b(l); (burglary of home of 83 and 94-year-old women), ajfd as modified, -85 (Minn.App.1987) (theft by misrepresentation of 80-year-old), pet.
State v. Lee 480 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Lee 480 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
recant on all subjects, Lee’s (inadmissible hearsay may not be admitted under the guise of impeachment), modified on other grounds
State v. Notch 446 N.W.2d 383 Minn. 1989
State v. Notch 446 N.W.2d 383 Minn. 1989
we held that burglary is a property offense to the extent that the multiple-victim exception to sections 609.035 and 609.04 does not allow the state to convict a defendant of three burglaries simply because three different people were present in a house when it was burglarized.
State v. Kelly 435 N.W.2d 807 Minn. 1989
State v. Kelly 435 N.W.2d 807 Minn. 1989
State v. Mitjans 408 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1987
State v. Mitjans 408 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1987
State v. French 400 N.W.2d 111 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. French 400 N.W.2d 111 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Walker v. State 394 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Walker v. State 394 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Litzinger 391 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Litzinger 391 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
While burglary is classified under the heading “damage or trespass to property,” we do not believe it is a major economic offense.