Cited by

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

118 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(discussing state’s burden to establish offenses were not committed as part of a single behavioral incident).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Because the state relies on the multiple -victim exception to establish that Rierson’s conduct does not constitute a single behavioral incident, and proving that his conduct does not constitute a single behavioral incident requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence, –42 (Minn. 2000), the state had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Rierson’s conduct involved multiple victims.
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Benjamin Klanderud Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Benjamin Klanderud Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The purposes of Minn. Stat. § 609.04 (2014) and Minn. Stat. § 609.035 (2014) are to protect the defendant from multiple sentences and multiple prosecutions and to ensure that “punishment will be commensurate with the criminality 3 of defendant’s conduct.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Brock William Orwig Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brock William Orwig Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Bakken 883 N.W.2d 264 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Bakken 883 N.W.2d 264 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Troy Gary Benjamin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Troy Gary Benjamin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Luke Brandon Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Luke Brandon Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Maurice Williams, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. James Maurice Williams, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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
-42 (Minn. 2000); see, d 660, 666 (Minn. 2006) (noting that the state failed to show that the possession of child 12 pornography offenses “took place at significantly different times or with significantly different criminal objectiv
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Paul Adams Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Paul Adams Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Wilfred Carl Hudson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Wilfred Carl Hudson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Mario Gonzalez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Mario Gonzalez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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. Stephanie JoNell Guscette Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Stephanie JoNell Guscette Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The first test applies if there are two or more intentional crimes; in that situation, “Minnesota courts consider whether the conduct (1) shares a unity of time and place and (2) was motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective.” (Bauer I) ( aff’d, ); ).
State of Minnesota v. Sean David Kilbo Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Sean David Kilbo Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Donald Ernest Beckman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Donald Ernest Beckman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“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. Janiece Rochelle Asante Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Janiece Rochelle Asante Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Bernard Miles Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Bernard Miles Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“When conducting a single-behavioral-incident analysis for two intentional crimes, Minnesota courts consider whether the conduct (1) shares a unity of time and place and (2) was motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective.”1 (d 837, 841 (Minn. 2000)), aff’d
State of Minnesota v. Alex Cennedi Closmore Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Alex Cennedi Closmore Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“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. Roosevelt Hunter Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Roosevelt Hunter Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“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 v. McCauley 820 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. McCauley 820 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
“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).
Dillon v. State 781 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Dillon v. State 781 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Vickla v. State 778 N.W.2d 354 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Vickla v. State 778 N.W.2d 354 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Bauer 776 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Bauer 776 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Grampre 766 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Grampre 766 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Jackson 749 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 2008
State v. Jones 745 N.W.2d 845 Minn. 2008
State v. Jones 745 N.W.2d 845 Minn. 2008
And conduct underlying one conviction cannot be relied on “to support departure on a sentence for a separate conviction.” ( (holding that it was impermissible to use conduct that resulted in victim’s murder as aggravating factors for burglary conviction)).
State v. Hager 727 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 2007

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by