Minnesota Supreme Court, 1980

State v. Marquardt

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided July 3, 1980 · Otis

294 N.W.2d 849; 1980 Minn. LEXIS 1483 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Meshbesher, Singer & Spence, Kenneth Meshbesher and Carol M. Grant, Minneapolis, for appellant., Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, R. Kathleen Morris, County Atty., Shako-pee, for respondent.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 2015, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Cites Minnesota statutes amended since this decision

Minn. Stat. § 609.035 — amended 1983
Minn. Stat. § 609.205 — amended 1984

Amendment history from the Minnesota Revisor of Statutes. A later amendment does not necessarily affect this decision's analysis — check the current statute text.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Minnesota statutes cited

Sections of the Minnesota Statutes this opinion cites.

Cases that cite this one

22 later published cases cite this decision.

State v. Whittaker (Minn. 1997)
State v. Bertsch (Minn. Ct. App. 2004)
State v. Ferguson (Minn. 2012)
State v. Rhoades (Minn. Ct. App. 2004)
State v. Brom (Minn. 1990)
State v. Anderson (Minn. Ct. App. 1990)
State v. Norris (Minn. 1988)
State v. McAdoo (Minn. 1983)
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Andrew Bursch (Minn. Ct. App. 2015)
State of Minnesota v. Momat Ali Jagne (Minn. Ct. App. 2015)
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Paul Adams (Minn. Ct. App. 2015)
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Dwayne Brown (Minn. Ct. App. 2015)
Tommie Relando Norwood v. State of Minnesota, Respondent./li> (Minn. Ct. App. 2014)
Wallace v. State (Minn. 2012)
State v. Ferguson (Minn. Ct. App. 2010)
State v. Skipintheday (Minn. 2006)
State v. Johnson (Minn. Ct. App. 2002)
State v. Kissner (Minn. Ct. App. 1995)
State v. Lee (Minn. 1992)
State v. Gartland (Minn. 1983)
State v. Montalvo (Minn. 1982)
State v. Wallace (Minn. 1982)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

OTIS, Justice.

Defendant was originally charged in district court with seven felony counts (one count of third-degree murder, one count of intentional infliction of great bodily harm, and five counts of assault with a dangerous weapon) for firing two bullets into a bar in Shakopee after he was ejected from the bar. A total of seven people inside the bar were struck by the two shots. One person died and another person was critically injured. The prosecutor and defense counsel negotiated a plea agreement whereby the five counts of assault with a dangerous weapon were dropped and defendant entered guilty pleas to second-degree manslaughter (as a lesser-included offense of the charge of third-degree murder) and intentional infliction of great bodily harm, Minn.Stat. §§ 609.205(1); .225, subd. 1 (1978), offenses carrying maximum prison terms of seven years and ten years respectively. The trial court sentenced defendant to limited terms of five years for manslaughter and three years for the assault but ordered that the terms be served consecutively. Defense counsel claims that the multiple sentences unfairly exaggerate the criminality of defendant’s conduct and, therefore, that one of the sentences should be vacated pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 609.035 (1978). We affirm.

Minn.Stat. § 609.035 generally bars multiple punishment of a defendant for multiple offenses arising from a single behavioral incident. In a number of cases, however, we have upheld multiple sentences for multiple crimes arising from the same behavioral incident when there were multiple victims to the crimes. See, e. g., State v. Briggs, 256 N.W.2d 305 (Minn. 1977), *851 where we upheld three consecutive prison terms imposed on a defendant who was found guilty of three counts of aggravated assault for firing twenty rounds of ammunition at three people on a porch. We agree with defendant that the multiple-victim exception to the statute is not a purely mechanistic test. The rule is not that a defendant should be sentenced to one sentence per victim but that one sentence may be imposed per victim in multiple-victim eases so long as the multiple sentences do not unfairly exaggerate the criminality of the defendant’s conduct. See State v. Rieck, 286 N.W.2d 724 (Minn. 1979). Our examination of the record in this case satisfies us that imposition of the multiple consecutive sentences does not unfairly exaggerate the criminality of defendant’s conduct.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.