Legal Opinion
State v. Watson
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided April 15, 2013No. A12-0904PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SCHELLHAS, Judge.
Appellant challenges his convictions of certain persons not to possess firearms and possession of a firearm on which the serial number or other identification has been obliterated, removed, changed, or altered, arguing that the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct and that the district court erred by sentencing appellant for both crimes when they were part of the same course of conduct. We affirm.
FACTS
On the evening of May 30 and early-morning hours of May 31, 2011, appellant Pierre Watson attended a party at his sister’s house. Also attending the party were two…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- State v. CaronSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1974
- State v. HannukselaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
- State v. StrommenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2002
- Vlahos v. R&I Construction of Bloomington, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2004
- Moorhead Economic Development Authority v. AndaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2010
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- State v. PatzoldCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2018
- State v. SalyersCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2014
- Mathews v. City of the Village of Minnetonka BeachCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2017
- State of Minnesota v. Dontrell Dyna FlowersCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2014