Cited by

( (“[A] lone prior act ‘does not and cannot constitute a pattern.’ ”)).

(concluding that the district court erred when it entered two first-degree murder convictions and one second-degree murder conviction for the same conduct involving the same victim).

To support this statement, the authors cite two supreme court cases: -87 (Minn. 2009)

at 552–53; (“[T]he State could not convict [the defendant] of both first-degree murder and the lesser-included offense of second-degree murder.”).

e convicted of either the crime charged or an included offense, but not both.” We have held that, under sectio n 609.04, “a defendant may not legally be convicted of two counts of first -degree murder when both convictions are for the same offense, are on the basis of the same act, and involve the same victim.” State v. Reese , see also State v. Johnson , (holding that the district court erred in convicting the defendant of two counts of first-degree murder and one count of second-degree intenti

State v. Hokanson , 4 (Minn. 2012) (“[W]e explained that although the State may prove a pattern beyond a reasonable doubt ‘even if the State does not prove every claimed predicate act of the pattern beyond a reasonable doubt,’ at least two instances must be proven beyond a re asonable doubt to constitute a pattern.” (footnote omitted) (quoting State v. Johnson , d 81, 86-87 (Minn. 2007)).

In other 6 words, “the State may not convict a person for both a crime and its lesser-included offense.” d 92, 94 ( Minn. 1994) (explaining that the defendant could not be convi cted of both first - degree murder and second -degree murder for the same conduct).

Since Cross was decided, the supreme court has clarified that to establish a pattern of abuse “the state must prove at least two incidents beyond a reasonable doubt.”

(“However, a lone prior act ‘does not and cannot constitute a pattern’.”) () Though necessary, the presence of at least two prior acts of domestic abuse may not be sufficient.