Cited by

That inquiry considers time, place, and whether the conduct was “motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective.”

Section 609.035 “broaden[s] the protection afforded by our constitutional provisions against double jeopardy.”

That inquiry considers time, place, and whether the conduct was “motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective.”

1 If any of the crimes lack an intent element, we consider whether they occurred “at substantially the same time and place and ar[ose] out of a continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct, manifesting an indivisible state of mind or coincident errors of judgment.” n.3 (Minn. 2011) (stating same).

d 517, 522 (Minn. 1966).

“[S]ection 609.035 contemplates that a defendant will be punished for the ‘most serious’ of the offenses arising out of a single behavioral incident because ‘imposing up to the maximum punishment for the most serious offense will include punishment for all offenses.’” ().

“‘[C]onduct’ refers to a ‘single behavioral incident’”—that is, “ acts committed at substantially the same time and place” with “a single criminal objective.” -17 (Minn. 2018) ().

(explaining the “drafters, as well as the 12 County home was separate from the heroin he sold to the undercover agent, because it was intended for a separate use or sale at a different time.

[and w]hether the segment of conduct involved was motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective.” Bauer, d at 828 ().

insure that punishment for a single incident of criminal behavior involving a multiplicity of violations will be commensurate with the criminality of [the] defendant’s misconduct.” -22 (Minn. 1966).

For time-and-place factors, we determine whether the acts occurred at “substantially the same time and place and arise out of a continuous and un interrupted course of conduct.” State v. Johnson

is to prohibit double punishment and at the same time to insure that punishment for a single incident of criminal behavior involving a multiplicity of violations will be commensurate with the c riminality of defendant’s misconduct.” -22 (Minn. 1966).

- 52 (Minn. App. 2002); see also Kendell, d at 607-08 (“[C]ourts should evaluate the temporal and geographic proximity of the offenses and assess whether the conduct was motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective”); d 517, 525 ( Minn. 1966) (stating that separate offense s “ result from a single behavioral incident where they occur at substantially the same time and place and arise out of a continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct, manifesting an indivisible state of mind

State v. Johnson , –25 (Minn. 1966); –17 (Minn. 2018) (“[A]cts that lack a unity of time and place or are motivated by different criminal objectives do not constitute a single behavioral incident, and therefore, are not ‘conduct,’ for purposes of section 609.035.”).

The purpose of the statute is “to prohibit double punishment and at the same time to insur e that punishment for a single incident of criminal behavior involving a multiplicity of violations will be commensurate with the criminality of defendant’s misconduct.” - 4 22 (Minn. 1966).

d 517, 522 (Minn. 1966).

See State v. Kooiman , -37 (Minn. 1971) (holding that a defendant’s convictions for drunkenness and criminal negligence were “independent of each other except for [an] approximate unity of time and the possible effect of [defendant]’s drinking on the quality of his driving”); State v. Johnson , (stating that the test is whether there is “a substantial relationship between the conduct constituting the violations”).

–86 (Minn. 1989); d 517, 521–22 (Minn. 1966).

State v. Johnson , 273 Minn. 394 , , 524 (1966).

In this appeal, respondent cites to State v. Johnson , 273 Minn. 394 , , 521-22 (1966), which held that the purpose of section 609.035 is to "insure that punishment for a single incident of criminal behavior involving a multiplicity of violations will be commensurate with the criminality of [a] defendant's misconduct."

State v. Johnson , 273 Minn. 394 , , 522 (1966).

See also State v. Johnson , 273 Minn. 394 , 404, , 525 (1966) (stating that "the essential ingredient of any test is whether the segment of conduct involved was motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective").

(alteration in original) (quotation omitted); see also State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 404

Stat. § 609.035 (2016) generally “prohibits multiple sentences, even concurrent sentences, for two or more offenses that were committed as part of a single behavioral incident,” State v. Norregaard , and contemplates that a defendant will be punished for the “m ost serious” of the offenses arising out of a single behavioral incident, State v. Johnson , 273 Minn. 394, 399

See State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 397, –21 (1966).

When a person is charged with multiple offenses, a district court must examine the offenses charged to determine whether they “resu lted from a single behavioral incident.” State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 404

State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 404-05

State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 400, (“[T]he dr afters [of section 609.035], as well as the legislature, intended not only to protect against double punishment but also to broaden the protection afforded by our constitutional provisions against double jeopardy.”).

When a person is charged with multiple offenses, a district court must examine the offenses charged to de termine whether they “resulted from a single behavioral incident.” State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 404

er the laws of this state, the person may be punished for only one of the offenses and a conviction or acquittal of any one of them is a bar to prosecution for any other of them.” But “[t]he instances in which the application of § 609.035 may be sought are narrowed to those where a ‘person’s conduct’ results in the commission of two or more separate or nonincluded offenses.” State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 398

at 81-82 (citing State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 405, ).

the person may be punished for only one of the offenses and a conviction or acquittal of any one of them is a bar to prosecution for any other of them.” Section 609.035 “ ‘broaden[s] the protection afforded by our constitutional provisions against double jeopardy.’ ” (quoting State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 400, ).

The legislature adopted section 609.035 “to broaden the protection afforded by our constitutional provisions against double jeopardy.” State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 400