Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Williams, 608 N.W.2d 837.

118 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Alexandra Jean Phillippi Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“The state has the burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the conduct underlying the offenses did not occur as part of a single behavioral incident.” -42 (Minn. 2000).
State of Minnesota v. Richard Alan Quarles Minn. Ct. App. 2026
The state bears the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that multiple “offenses did not occur as part of the same behavioral incident.”
State of Minnesota v. Michael Lavale Powell Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Chad Arthur Gilfillan Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Chad David Doris Minn. Ct. App. 2025
d 837, 841-42 (Minn. 2000).
State of Minnesota v. Lonny Slade Glover Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Mohamed Abdulgani Ahmed Minn. Ct. App. 2024
The state bears the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that multiple “offenses did not occur as part of the same behavioral incident.”
State of Minnesota v. Juan Antonio Ruiz Minn. Ct. App. 2024
The state bears the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that multiple “offenses did not occur as part of the same behavioral incident.” -42 (Minn. 2000).
State of Minnesota v. Sherif Mohamed Abdeltawwab Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Sherif Mohamed Abdeltawwab Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Todd Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Christopher Gusciora Minn. Ct. App. 2023
The state bears the burden of proving “by a preponderance of the evidence that the conduct did not occur as part of a single behavioral incident.”
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Levell Washington Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Jordan Latrell Jefferson Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“In determining whether a course of conduct consists of a single behavioral incident we have considered factors of time and place and whether the segment of conduct involved was motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective.” d 837, 841 (Minn. 2000) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Dennis Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Joseph Thomas Saari v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
the person may be punished for only one of the offenses and a conviction or acquittal of any one of them is a bar to pr osecution for any other of them.” This means that, as a general rule, a court can only sentence a defendant once for offenses occurring in a “single behavioral incident.” State v. Williams
State of Minnesota v. Adam Lee Bush Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Jonathon Ross Rudquist Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Lo Minn. Ct. App. 2021
2 In this case, the district court art iculated a single reason for its decision to depart upward by three months: the particular vulnerability of the young children.
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Alan Martin Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(concluding that state failed to meet its burden of proving separate criminal objectives).
State of Minnesota v. Milo Calvin Ojohn Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. John Stephen Bense Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Paul Andrew Youngstedt Minn. Ct. App. 2020
1 (20 18), “if a person’s conduct constitutes more than one offense under the laws of this stat e, the person may be pu nished for only one of the offenses.” This means that a court ge nerally may not impose separate sentences for offenses that arose from a “single behavioral incident.”
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Henry Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Williams , This statute protects the defendant from multiple sentences and multiple prosecutions and ensures that “punishment .
State of Minnesota v. Angel Torrejon Ramirez Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Sophia Wang Navas Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Blake Charles Patton Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Williams , -42 (Minn. 2000)
State of Minnesota (A18-1655) (A18-1490) v. Brian Joseph Andvik (A18-1490) (A18-1655) Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Semaj Maurice Dow, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Darin Bean Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Erik Walden Narveson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“The state has the burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the conduct underlying the offenses did not occur as part of a single behavioral incident.” State v. Williams , 41–42 (Minn. 2000).
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Douglas Ratcliff Minn. Ct. App. 2019
1 (2016); State v. Williams
State of Minnesota v. Juan Andres Gonzalez, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Williams , -42 (Minn. 2000).
State of Minnesota v. Darren Heath Degroot Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Joshua John Blanchard Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Jerrad Chad Juhl Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. David Michael Easter Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Samantha Dione Zornes Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Williams , -42 (Minn. 2000) (stating that the state has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that offenses did not occur as part of a single behavioral incident).
State of Minnesota v. Jessy Alejandro Aguilar Garcia Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In determining whether a course of conduct consists of a single behavioral incident, this court considers time, place, and “whether the segment of c onduct involved was motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective.” d 837, 841 (Minn. 2000) (quotati on omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Gilbert Lee Rodriquez Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The state bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the conduct underlying the offenses “did not occur as part of a single behavioral incident.” -42 (Minn. 2000).
State of Minnesota v. Johann Richard Sebastian Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Gonzalez Sotelo Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In determining whether a course of conduct consists of a single behavioral incident, this court considers time, place, and “whether the segment of conduct involved was motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective.” (quotation 7 omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Erik Walden Narveson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
1 (2014); State v. Williams
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Scott Sundblad Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Michael Christian Robert Foss Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Mark Robert Miles Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 837, 841 (Minn. 2000).
State of Minnesota v. James Irving Dale Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Maurice Curtis Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“When conducting a single-behavioral-incident analys is for two intentional crimes, Minnesota courts consider whether the conduct (1) shar es a unity of time and place and (2) was motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective.” d 462, 478 (Minn. App. 2009) (), aff’d
State of Minnesota v. Emery James Jenkins Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Clint Scott Bearce Minn. Ct. App. 2017

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by