Cited by

See State v. Bauer , (affirming multiple sentences because sharing illegal drugs with friends is too broad to constitute a single criminal objective); State v. Gould , (affirming use of the Hernandez method because relieving financial hardship is too broad to constitute a single crimi

See State v. 8 Bauer, -72 (Minn. App. 2009), aff’d on other grounds, d 825 (Minn. 2011) (concluding prosecutor’s improper questions were not “unusually serious”); (holding prosecutor elicited excluded testimony and this was “less serious” misconduct).

See, e.g., State v. Bauer , -27 (Minn. 2011) (multip le controlled buys through informants at staged storefront); ( three controlled sales to informant); 434 (Minn. App. 2001), aff’d on other grounds , ( sale of crack coc

When determining whether two offenses arose from a single behavioral incident, a court considers “whether the offenses occurred at substantially the same time and place and arose out of a continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct, manifesting an indivisible state of mind or coincident errors of judgment.” d 825, 828 n.3 (Minn. 2011) (quotation omitted).

And a prosecutor may “pose rhetorical que stions to the jury, asking it to use common sense to determine whether the defense presented is reasonable.” aff’d

To determine whether two or more offenses were committed during a single behavioral incident, we examine two factors: (1) whether “the offenses occurred at substantially the same time and place,” Jones , d at 533, and (2) whether the conduct “was motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective,” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

See State v. Bauer , (holding that whether two intent crimes constitute a single -behavioral incident requires co nsideration of time, place, and whether the conduct was motivated by an intent to obtain a single criminal objective).

at 525; (quot ing Johnson).1 Because Johnson committed the two offenses “within a period of a few minutes and a distance of two blocks,” and his conduct “manifest[ed] an indivisible state of mind,” the supreme court concluded that they flowed from the same behavioral incident.

(“In order to determine whether two intentional crimes are part of a single behavioral incident, we consider factors of time and 14 place .

Appellate courts apply a clear-error standard of review to a district court’s factual findings 9 underlying the determination of whether multiple offenses constituted a single behavioral incident, State v. O’Meara, and a de novo standard of review to the ultimate determination, aff’d

In determining whether “ two intentional crimes are part of a single behavioral incident” fo r purposes of imposing multiple sentences, courts “consider factors of time and place and whether the segment of conduct involved was motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective.” (quotation omitted).

State v. Bauer , , 827-30 (Minn. 2011).

-28 (Minn. 2011) (stating that an analysis of whether offenses arise from a single behavioral incident depends first on whether any of the crimes have an intent element); d 411, 412-13 (Minn. 1979) (stating that DWI is a nonintentional crime for purposes of Minn. Stat. § 609.035); St

State v. Bauer , , 828 n.3 (Minn. 2011) (quotation omitted).

[and w]hether the segment of conduct involved was motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective.” 1 Here, Mohamed’s testimony at the plea hearing established that he committed assault and witness tampering at the same time and place: Mohamed was at a party when he threatened the victim and swung a knife at him in order to frighten the victim into not calling the police.

Jurors are “presumed to have followed the district court’s instruction to disregard statements as to which an objection has been sustained.” aff’d. (Minn. Jan.

We apply a clear-error standard of review to a district court’s factual findings underlying the determination whether multiple offenses constituted a single behavioral incident, State v. O’Meara, and a de novo standard of review to the ultimate determination, aff’d

“[T]o determine whether two intentional crimes are part of a single behavioral incident, we consider factors of time and place and whether the segment of conduct involved was motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective.” (quotation omitted).

But a “prosecutor may pose rhetorical questions to the jury, aski ng it to use common sense to determine whether the defense presented is reasonable.” aff’d

See, e.g., State v. Grilli, 304 Minn. 80, 81, 87-96, 451-56 (1975); d 462, 469-70 (Minn. App. 2009), aff’d, State v. Johnson , review denied (Minn. Apr.

This has been interpreted to mean that a defendant cannot receive “multiple sentences for crimes that arise from a single 8 behavioral incident.” State v. Bauer , , 827 (Minn. 2011).

State v. Bauer , , 828 (Minn. 2011).

See, -72, 474-75 (Minn. App. 2009) (reasoning that jury is presumed to follow instructions if prosecutor makes improper statement), aff’d

“When conducting a single-behavioral-incident analys is for two intentional crimes, Minnesota courts consider whether the conduct (1) shar es a unity of time and place and (2) was motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective.” d 462, 478 (Minn. App. 2009) (), aff’d

To determine whether two intentional crimes are part of a single behavioral incident, we consider factors of time and place and whether the segment of conduct was motivated by an effort to obtain a single “criminal objective.” (quotation omitted).

The statute bars multiple sentences for crimes arising from a “single behavioral incident.”

The Minnesota Supreme Court has interpreted this statute to prohibit multiple sentences for crimes that arose out of a “single behavioral incident.” State v. 4 Bauer

When a defendant has been found guilty of multiple intentional offenses, a court considers whether (1) there is unity of time and place, and (2) whether the defendant’s conduct was “motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective.” (quotation omitted).

9 2014), and (2) whether the conduct “was motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective,”

“Whether the offenses arose from the same behavioral incident depends on the facts and circumstances of the particular case.” aff’d