multiple-victims exception in Minnesota

6 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2016 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (7)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Wallacegreen minn · 1982 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 1 sentence 2012State v. Wallace, 327 N.W.2d 85, 87 (Minn.1982) (concluding that multiple sentences were permissible under the multiple-victims exception for Wallace’s convictions of attempted first-degree murder and criminal sexual conduct).	1	1
Neal v. State of Californiagreen cal · 1960 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 2 sentences 2009In creating this exception, we noted that the California Supreme Court had created a similar exception in Neal v. State, 55 Cal.2d 11 , 9 Cal.Rptr. 607 , 357 P.2d 839, 844-45 (1960). 2009In creating this exception, we noted that the California Supreme Court had created a similar exception in Neal v. State, 55 Cal.2d 11 , 9 Cal.Rptr. 607 , 357 P.2d 839, 844-45 (1960).	1	1
State v. DeFoegreen minn · 1979 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 2 sentences 2009In other cases that predate the creation of the sentencing guidelines, we stated that "[w]e have adopted the rule that multiple sentences may be imposed in multiple victim cases provided the sentences do not unfairly exaggerate the criminality of the defendant's conduct." State v. Rieck, 286 N.W.2d 724, 727 (Minn. 1979); see also State v. DeFoe, 280 N.W.2d 38, 42 (Minn.1979) (holding in cases involving multiple victims that "[a]llowing multiple sentencing ... does not unfairly exaggerate the criminality of the defendant's conduct and the double sentence seems commensurate with defendant's incr 2009In other cases that predate the creation of the sentencing guidelines, we stated that "[w]e have adopted the rule that multiple sentences may be imposed in multiple victim cases provided the sentences do not unfairly exaggerate the criminality of the defendant's conduct.” State v. Rieck, 286 N.W.2d 724, 727 (Minn.1979); see also State v. DeFoe, 280 N.W.2d 38, 42 (Minn.1979) (holding in cases involving multiple victims that "[allowing multiple sentencing ... does not unfairly exaggerate the criminality of the defendant's conduct and the double sentence seems commensurate with defendant’s increa	1	1
State v. Rieckgreen minn · 1979 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 2 sentences 2009In other cases that predate the creation of the sentencing guidelines, we stated that "[w]e have adopted the rule that multiple sentences may be imposed in multiple victim cases provided the sentences do not unfairly exaggerate the criminality of the defendant's conduct." State v. Rieck, 286 N.W.2d 724, 727 (Minn. 1979); see also State v. DeFoe, 280 N.W.2d 38, 42 (Minn.1979) (holding in cases involving multiple victims that "[a]llowing multiple sentencing ... does not unfairly exaggerate the criminality of the defendant's conduct and the double sentence seems commensurate with defendant's incr 2009In other cases that predate the creation of the sentencing guidelines, we stated that "[w]e have adopted the rule that multiple sentences may be imposed in multiple victim cases provided the sentences do not unfairly exaggerate the criminality of the defendant's conduct.” State v. Rieck, 286 N.W.2d 724, 727 (Minn.1979); see also State v. DeFoe, 280 N.W.2d 38, 42 (Minn.1979) (holding in cases involving multiple victims that "[allowing multiple sentencing ... does not unfairly exaggerate the criminality of the defendant's conduct and the double sentence seems commensurate with defendant’s increa	1	1
State v. Gartlandgreen minn · 1983 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 1 sentence 2009State v. Gartland, 330 N.W.2d 881, 883 (Minn.1983) (affirming the use of *523 the Hernandez method to calculate a defendant’s criminal-history score when he was sentenced for two counts of criminal negligence, based on the same car accident, under the multiple-victims exception to Minn.Stat. § 609.035).	1	1
State Ex Rel. Stangvik v. Tahashgreen minn · 1968 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 2 sentences 2009Under the multiple-victims exception, defendants may be sentenced separately for multiple convictions arising from the same behavioral incident if those eon-victions relate to multiple victims. 5 Id. at 359-60 , 161 N.W.2d at 672 . 2009Under the multiple-victims exception, defendants may be sentenced separately for multiple convictions arising from the same behavioral incident if those eon-victions relate to multiple victims. 5 Id. at 359-60 , 161 N.W.2d at 672 .	1	1
State v. Shattuckgreen minn · 2005 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 1 sentence 2009Shattuck, 704 N.W.2d at 145 (describing parole board’s authority to parole or discharge a defendant without regard to the length of the sentence).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Hodges green minnctapp · 1986 1 sentence 2016State v. Hodges, 384 N.W.2d 175 , 178 n. 1, 182-83 (Minn.App.1986), aff 'd as modified, 386 N.W.2d 709 (Minn.1986). ” We affirmed the multiple convictions based on the multiple-victims exception to section 609.04.	1	2016–2016
State v. Hodges green minn · 1986 1 sentence 2016State v. Hodges, 384 N.W.2d 175 , 178 n. 1, 182-83 (Minn.App.1986), aff 'd as modified, 386 N.W.2d 709 (Minn.1986). ” We affirmed the multiple convictions based on the multiple-victims exception to section 609.04.	1	2016–2016
State v. Edwards green minn · 2009 1 sentence 2015Id. at 606 .	1	2015–2015
State v. Skipintheday green minn · 2006 2 sentences 2009Skipintheday, 717 N.W.2d at 426 ; Tahash, 281 Minn. at 359-60 , 161 N.W.2d at 671-72 . [8] Our analysis here is limited to the propriety of upward departures under the judicially created multiple-victims exception, however, and does not consider whether other upward departures are permissible under different circumstances, including additional statutory exceptions to Minn.Stat. § 609.035. [9] The dissent asserts that the "30-month upward departure for the assault amounted to punishment twice for the same conduct" because the "risk-creating conduct" of causing "great bodily harm" was considered 2009Skipintheday, 717 N.W.2d at 426 ; Tahash, 281 Minn. at 359-60 , 161 N.W.2d at 671-72 . .	1	2009–2009
Effinger v. State neutral minnctapp · 1985 1 sentence 1986Effinger v. State, 368 N.W.2d at 420 .	1	1986–1986

Statutes the citing opinions construe

MN § Minn. Stat. § 609.035 (4) MN § Minn. Stat. § 609.222 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

CA 11 (1995–2026) MN 6 (1986–2016) IL 2 (2020–2020)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check