From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Marquardt

Supreme Court of Minnesota
Jul 3, 1980
294 N.W.2d 849 (Minn. 1980)

Summary

holding that the district court did not err by sentencing a defendant to consecutive prison terms for second-degree manslaughter and aggravated assault committed against two separate victims because the multiple sentences did not unfairly exaggerate the criminality of the defendant's conduct

Summary of this case from Wallace v. State

Opinion

No. 50645.

July 3, 1980.

Appeal from the District Court, Scott County, John M. Fitzgerald, J.

Meshbesher, Singer Spence, Kenneth Meshbesher and Carol M. Grant, Minneapolis, for appellant.

Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, R. Kathleen Morris, County Atty., Shakopee, for respondent.

Considered and decided by the court en banc without oral argument.


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), 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 cases 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.


Summaries of

State v. Marquardt

Supreme Court of Minnesota
Jul 3, 1980
294 N.W.2d 849 (Minn. 1980)

holding that the district court did not err by sentencing a defendant to consecutive prison terms for second-degree manslaughter and aggravated assault committed against two separate victims because the multiple sentences did not unfairly exaggerate the criminality of the defendant's conduct

Summary of this case from Wallace v. State

holding multiple sentences appropriate for multiple-victim crimes arising from the same behavioral incident if the sentences do not unfairly exaggerate the criminality of defendant's conduct

Summary of this case from State v. Johnson

affirming separate sentences for five counts of aggravated assault where the defendant planted a firebomb at a house while five residents were at home

Summary of this case from State v. Bertsch

affirming imposition of two sentences for defendant who fired two bullets that struck seven people in a bar

Summary of this case from State v. Kissner

In Marquardt, this court stated the rule that one sentence may be imposed per victim in multiple-victim cases as long as the multiple sentences "do not unfairly exaggerate the criminality of the defendant's conduct."

Summary of this case from State v. Whittaker

permitting one sentence per victim in multiple-victim cases "so long as the multiple sentences do not unfairly exaggerate the criminality of the defendant's conduct"

Summary of this case from State v. Adams

stating that the rule is that "one sentence may be imposed per victim in multiple-victim cases so long as the multiple sentences do not unfairly exaggerate the criminality of the defendant's conduct"

Summary of this case from State v. Padilla

applying the multiple-victim exception as long as the sentences do not unfairly exaggerate the criminality of the defendant's conduct

Summary of this case from State v. Bertsch
Case details for

State v. Marquardt

Case Details

Full title:STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Larry Lyle MARQUARDT, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court of Minnesota

Date published: Jul 3, 1980

Citations

294 N.W.2d 849 (Minn. 1980)

Citing Cases

State v. Ferguson

That prong provides a cap on multiple sentences and reflects the principle that a defendant's sentence should…

State v. Ferguson

That prong provides a cap on multiple sentences and reflects the principle that a defendant's sentence should…