Legal Opinion

State v. Secrest

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided March 28, 1989No. CX-88-1934PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

LANSING, Judge.

The trial court determined that a conviction in Washington County of engaging in sexual contact “on numerous occasions between September 9, 1983 and April 22, 1986” in violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.345, subd. 1(b) (1986) did not bar a prosecution by Mille Lacs County for violation of the same statute with the same person in Mille Lacs County on December 26, 1985. After initially denying certification requests the trial court, continuing to answer the question in the negative, certified it under Minn. R.Crim. P. 28.03 (1986).

FACTS

In November 1986 Thomas Secrest was…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. State v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1966
  2. State v. ReilandSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1966
  3. State v. HerbergSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
  4. State v. EatonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
  5. State Ex Rel. Stangvik v. TahashSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1968

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State v. HeathCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2004
  2. State v. BauerCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2009
  3. State v. ButterfieldCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1996
  4. State v. BarthmanCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2018
  5. Eduardo Cortez, Jr. v. State of MinnesotaCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2015

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API