Legal Opinion
State v. Schmidt
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided June 22, 2000No. C5-99-346PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
RUSSELL A. ANDERSON, Justice.
In this case the trial court set aside guilty verdicts prior to sentencing because a subdivision of the charging statute was declared unconstitutional. We consider whether Minn.Stat. § 609.035 (1996) or the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the Minnesota and United States Constitutions bar retrial by an amended complaint that charges the same conduct under a different subdivision of the charging statute.
The state charged appellant Randy Lee Schmidt with eight counts of stalking three alleged victims in violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.749, subd. 2(7) (1996). 1 The…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- United States v. ScottSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
- State v. Joon Kyu KimSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1987
- State v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1966
- Bangert v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- State v. YangSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2009
- State v. SkipinthedaySupreme Court of Minnesota · 2006
- State v. Martinez-MendozaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2011
- Derrick Trevor Griffin v. State of MinnesotaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2016
- State v. Castillo-AlvarezSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2013
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.