Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Gould, 562 N.W.2d 518.

21 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
rding the “single criminal objective” prong, while “defendants convicted of drug sales may be motivated by the single criminal objective of selling drugs to relieve financial hardship, [the supreme court] has held that the criminal plan of obtaining as much money as possible is too broad an objective to constitute a single criminal goal within the meaning of section 609.035.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
had the same motivation—profit from selling drugs.” Yet, in the context of multiple drug sales, we have held “the criminal plan of obtaining as much money as possible is too broad an objective to constitute a single criminal goal within the meaning of section 609.035.” Soto, d at 304; .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
To do so, we consider factors such as (1) time and place, and (2) whether the offenses were “motivated by a desire to obtain a single criminal objective.” State v. Gould
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“[T]he factors to be considered in determining whether multiple offenses constitute a single behavioral act are time, place, and whether the offenses were motivated by a desire to obtain a single criminal objective.”
A19-1493 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(concluding that sharing illegal drugs with friends is too broad to constitute a single criminal objective); see also State v. Gould , (concluding that financial hardship is too broad to constitute a single criminal 7 Although the state did not introduce any evidence to support these facts at the Rasmussen hearing, the parties do not contest the time or location of the murder, the dr
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See State v. Bauer , (affirming multiple sentences because sharing illegal drugs with friends is too broad to constitute a single criminal objective); State v. Gould , (affirming use of the Hernandez method because relieving financial hardship is too broad to constitute a single criminal objective); (affirming use of Hernandez method because selling drugs to relieve financial hardship is too broad to constitute a s
Marcus Kendrick Jones, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Courts consider three factors to determine whether multiple offenses were part of the same behavioral incident: “time, place, and whether the offenses were motivated by a desire to obtain a single criminal objective.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
4 In considering whether multiple offenses constitute a single course of conduct, courts look at factors such as “time, place, and whether the offenses were motivated by a desire to obtain a single criminal objective.” d 518, 521 (Minn. 1997).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In considering whether multiple offenses constitute a single course of conduct, we look at factors such as “time, place, and whether the offenses were mo tivated by a desire to obtain a single criminal objective.”
State of Minnesota v. Peter Clare Hoagland Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Peter Clare Hoagland Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Drljic 876 N.W.2d 350 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Drljic 876 N.W.2d 350 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[T]he factors to be considered in determining whether multiple offenses constitute a single behavioral act are time, place, and whether the offenses were motivated by a desire to obtain a single criminal objective.”
State of Minnesota v. Don Antoine Jones 848 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Don Antoine Jones 848 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 2014
See, e.g., Bauer, d at 830 (sharing drugs with friends for no profit was not a single criminal objective); (making as much money as possible was not a single criminal objective); (“general hatred of women” was too broad to constitute a single criminal objective).
State v. Bauer 792 N.W.2d 825 Minn. 2011
State v. Bauer 792 N.W.2d 825 Minn. 2011
(applying the test of intentional crimes to determine whether multiple sale-of-controlled-substance offenses arose from a single behavioral incident).
State v. Rannow 703 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Rannow 703 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Barnes 618 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Barnes 618 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(holding three sales of heroin on separate days within same week not single behavioral incident); (holding that multiple drug sales were not single behavioral incident).