With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of the statute. 281 Minn. at 360-61, 161 N.W.2d at 672-73 (noting that "[t]he philosophy behind the statute ... was to ... make both punishment and prosecution commensurate with culpability” and indicating that whether multiple sentences for multiple victims would violate the statute would depend on "whether multiple sentences would result in punishment grossly out of proportion to the gravity of the offense”). In other cases that predate the creation of the sentencing guidelines, we stated that "[w]e have adopted the rule that multiple sentences may be imposed in multiple victim cases provided the sentences do not unfairly exaggerate the criminality of the defendant's conduct.” State v. Rieck, 286 N.W.2d 724, 727 (Minn.1979); see also State v. DeFoe, 280 N.W.2d 38, 42 (Minn.1979) (<HOLDING>). 7 . The dissent argues that we have created

A: holding that the district court did not err by sentencing a defendant to consecutive prison terms for seconddegree manslaughter and aggravated assault committed against two separate victims because the multiple sentences did not unfairly exaggerate the criminality of the defendants conduct
B: holding in cases involving multiple victims that allowing multiple sentencing  does not unfairly exaggerate the criminality of the defendants conduct and the double sentence seems commensurate with defendants increased culpability
C: holding that where an indictment alleges multiple owners the state must prove that there were in fact multiple owners
D: holding that absent a formal agreement among defendants in a litigation proceeding involving multiple defendants the circuit court should not generally permit a settling defendants expert witnesses to testify for the remaining defendants especially where doing so would violate the settlement agreement
B.