State v. Hobbs
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MINGE, Judge.
Appellant challenges his conviction on the basis of prosecutorial misconduct and challenges his sentence on several grounds. Because any prosecutorial misconduct was not unduly prejudicial and because appellant failed to object at trial, we affirm appellant’s conviction. But because we conclude the district court erred by submitting interrogatories on the statutory sentencing factors to the jury, we reverse and remand appellant’s sentence.
FACTS
After a home break-in, appellant David S. Hobbs was found close by, recognized by police as the intruder, and charged with burglary…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- State v. TureSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
- State v. ShattuckSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2005
- State v. StrommenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2002
- State v. BradfordSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2000
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. LushenkoCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2006
- State v. LushenkoCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2006