Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Whittaker, 568 N.W.2d 440.

99 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Michael Tillman Minn. 2026
Milton K. Sanders, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. 2025
Milton K. Sanders, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. David Darnell Jones, Jr., Appellant/Cross-Respondent Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. David Darnell Jones, Jr., Appellant/Cross-Respondent Minn. 2024
sed on direct evidence, the traditional standard for evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence applies: In “considering a claim of insufficiency of the evidence, [we] must ascertain whether, given the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences that can be drawn from those facts, a jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the offense charged.”
, A22-0290 Minn. 2023
2; (“Failure to include in a motion all defenses, objections, issues, and requests then available constitutes a waiver 21 thereof, unless the court for good cause shown grants relief from the waiver.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(stating that an appellate “court generally will not review the district court’ s exercise of its discretion in sentencing when the sentences imposed are all within the guidelines range”) ; Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D 3 We note that Erbob’s request for relief asks this court to impose a 42-month
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Branch 930 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Branch 930 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The rule allows a district court to impose more than one sentence for convictions arising out of a single behavioral incident when multiple victims are involved, State v. Whittaker , , 453 (Minn. 1997), provided that (1) the crimes affect multiple victims and (2) multiple sentences do not unfairly exaggerate the criminality of the defendant's conduct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 615, 85 S. Ct. 1229, 1233 (1965)
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Vang, d at 258 (life sentence for first-degree murder); Yang, d at 551 (two life sentences for aiding and abetting first-degree premeditated murder for the benefit of a gang); Cruz-Ramirez, d at 504 (life sentence with no possibility of release); d 650, 654 (Minn. 1999) (life imprisonment for first-degree murder); (life sentence for murder).
Munt v. State 920 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 2018
Munt v. State 920 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 2018
A judicially created exception to section 609.035, subdivision 1, exists for offenses involving multiple victims."); State v. Whittaker , , 453 (Minn. 1997) ("This court has carved out an exception to this multiple punishment bar when multiple victims are involved ....").
State v. Johnson 915 N.W.2d 740 Minn. 2018
State v. Johnson 915 N.W.2d 740 Minn. 2018
State v. Whittaker , , 451 (Minn. 1997).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 440, 450 (Minn. 1997).
State of Minnesota v. Quince Raymond Campbell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Quince Raymond Campbell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Richard Ellis Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Richard Ellis Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Sam Horace Meeks Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Sam Horace Meeks Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Eric Scott Knutson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Eric Scott Knutson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Welle 847 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Carridine 812 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 2012
State v. Carridine 812 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 2012
State v. Ferguson 808 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 2012
State v. Ferguson 808 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 2012
We have therefore “carved out an exception to [section *590 609.035] when multiple victims are involved.”
State v. Vue 797 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 2011
State v. Vue 797 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 2011
Vue characterizes this statement as the prosecutor “calling the jury’s attention to the fact that the defendant did not take the witness stand.” It is error for the “prosecutor at a defendant’s trial [to] allude to the defendant’s failure to testify.” (citing Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 615 , 85 S.Ct.
State v. SONTOYA 788 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2010
State v. SONTOYA 788 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2010
State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
State v. McDaniel 777 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 2010
State v. McDaniel 777 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 2010
a case arising from the trial of the two men who shot Christopher Lynch, we stated that “[prosecutors improperly shift the burden of proof when they imply that a defendant has the burden of proving his innocence.” -52 (Minn.1997).
State v. Pearson 775 N.W.2d 155 Minn. 2009
State v. Pearson 775 N.W.2d 155 Minn. 2009
(“The defendant’s failure to object implies that the comments [about the defendant’s choice to remain silent] were not prejudicial.”).
State v. Jackson 773 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 2009
State v. Martin 773 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2009
State v. Martin 773 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2009
State v. Jackson 773 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 2009
State v. Cruz-Ramirez 771 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2009
State v. Cruz-Ramirez 771 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2009