Cited by

a criminal statute for acts committed during a single behavioral incident.” d 537, 556 (Minn. 2023) (remanding, sua sponte, a duplicative second-degree intentional murder conviction to be vacated when the defendant was also convicted of first-degree felony murder for the same killing); (explaining that section 609.04 “generally forbids two convictions of the same offense .

An included offense includes a crime necessarily proved if the crime charged were proved.” (quotations omitted).

vides that, “[u]pon prosecution for a crime, the actor may be convicted of either the crime charged or an included offense, but not both.” “Minnesota appellate courts have consistently construed 23 section 609.04 to bar multiple convictions for the same offense stemming from a single act.” d 68, 79 (Minn. App. 2024) (citing Cruz, d at 556; (“This statute ‘generally forbids two convictions of the same offense .

See, (vacating, sua sponte, a duplicative second- degree intentional-murder conviction when defendant was also convicted of first-degree felony murder stemming from a single killing); (“This statute ‘generally forbids two convictions of the same offense .

See, (vacating, sua sponte, a duplicative second-degree intentional murder conviction when defendant was also convicted of first-degree felony murder stemming from a single killing); (“This statute ‘generally forbids two convictions of the same offense .

d 336, 341 (Minn. 2010) (relying on the definition of assault in Minnesota Statutes section 6 609.02, subdivision 10, in identifying the elements of first- degree burglary-assault).

Under a section 609.04 inquiry, we are required to compare “the statutory elements of both crimes.”

“Minneso ta law generally prohibits a person from being punished twice for conduct that is part of the same behavioral incident, with certain exceptions.” State v. Holmes

To determine whether the exception applies, our analysis centers on the meaning of the phrase “any other crime.” State v. Holmes , (interpreting the burglary exception and stating that “we must determine whether third - degree assault is ‘any other crime’”); Nowels, d at 441 (“The issue before us is whether the ‘any other crime’ language removes th e bar against multiple convictions and sentences .

See, e.g. , State v. Holmes , (“The phrase ‘any other crime’ means a crime that requires proof of different 11 statutory elements than the crim e of burglary.” (quotation omitted)); State v. Mitchell , -65 (Minn. App. 2016), review denied (Minn. 2016).

See State v. Holmes , -41 (Minn. 2010) (interpreting Minn. Stat. § 609.585 (2008 )).

The issue here then, is whether the nonburglary offense is “any other crime.”

burglary is not a bar to conviction of or punishment for any other crime committed on entering or while in the building entered.” In State v. Holmes, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that section 609.585 “allow[s] a conviction of another crime committed in the same course of conduct as the burglary, provided that the statutory elements of that crime are different than the crime of burglary.”

“A fact is relevant if, when taken alone or in connection with other facts, it warrants a jury in drawing a logical inference assisting, even though remotely, the determination of the issue in question.” d 326, 329 (Minn. App. 2008), aff’d

10 (2008); (approving application of assault definition under Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd.

See, (“The phrase ‘any other crime’ means a crime that requires proof of different statutory elements than the crime of burglary.” (quoting section 609.585)); (“Burglary is a serious crime, and punishment is allowed for both the burglary and the crime

-41 (Minn. 2010) (interpreting Minn. Stat. § 609.585 (2008)).

“Minnesota law generally prohibits a person from being punished twice for conduct that is part of the same behavioral incident, with certain exceptions.” see Minn. Stat. § 609.035 (2014).

aff’d, (“An assault 7 committed by a defendant can be used to fulfill both the crime element and the assault element of first-degree burglary under Minn. Stat. § 609.582, subd.

-41 (Minn.2010) (considering the statutory framework and concluding that when a burglary is elevated to first degree because the defendant committed a third-degree assault while in the building, defendant may be charged with and convicted of both first-degree burglary and third-degree assault).

(stating that “when there is a single course of conduct involv *779 ing one assault, a conviction and sentence for first-degree burglary with assault is not a bar to a conviction and sentence for ...

This point of law has been more recently stated to require that when a penal statute is ambiguous, it must be “resolved in favor of the criminal defendant in the interest of lenity.”