with two counts of sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 152.023, subd. 1(1) (2010). Appellant pleaded guilty to one count of sale of a

State of Minnesota v. Pierre Corey Stewart, Appellant.. · 2015 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Ricky Marcel Roberson · 2015 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Dean Aaron Anderson · 2015 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Willie Ester Waters · 2015 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Dawayne Lester · 2015 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Ryan Matthew Drown · 2015 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Rafael O'Toole Watson · 2015 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Levi Braziel, Jr. · 2014 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Brittney Dominique McKinney · 2014 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Stephen Thomas Conlin · 2014 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Jason Alan Folland · 2014 1 citation

knew to be marijuana. See Minn. Stat. § 152.023, subd. 2(a)(5) (2012). Investigator

State of Minnesota v. Kyle Anthony Compardo · 2014 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Dean v. City of Winona · 2014 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Thompson v. Commissioner of Health · 2010 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Bauer · 2009 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Hooks · 2008 1 citation

To demonstrate just how extreme Hooks’s argument really is, one need look no further than the statute that he violated. “A person is guilty of controlled substance crime in the third degree if ... the person unlawfully sells one or more mixtures containing a narcotic drug.” Minn. Stat. § 152.023, subd. 1(1) (2004) (emphasis added). If Hooks is correct that the challenged instructions are erroneous, it is also true that even reading the applicable statute to the jury was erroneous since the statute dictates that “a person is guilty ” for doing what Hooks did.

State v. Richmond · 2007 5 citations

+ 5 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Turck · 2007 7 citations

+ 7 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Jordan · 2007 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Skapyak · 2005 9 citations

+ 9 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Byron · 2004 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Porter · 2004 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Benniefield · 2003 5 citations

+ 5 more citations in this opinion.

State v. DeShay · 2002 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Zimmer · 2002 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Kua Vang · 2001 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Foster · 2001 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Hawkins · 2001 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Wilson · 1999 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Wright · 1998 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Royster · 1998 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. White · 1991 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Kessler · 1991 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Jinkerson · 1991 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Martinson · 1990 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

U.S. District Court, D. Minnesota

United States v. Spight · 2017 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.