Cited by

ances which do not apply here, “if a person’s conduct constitutes more than one offense under the laws of this state, the person may be punished for only one of the offenses.” The supreme court has explained that “the law generally prohibits multiple sentences, even concurrent sentences, for two or more offenses that were committed as part of a single behavioral incident.” (quotation omitted).

(“Offenses are part of a single course of conduct if the offenses occurred at substantially the same time and place and were motivated by a single criminal objective.”); (clarifying that, when two or more offenses occur in substantially the same place, “we consider [only] whether the offenses occurred at substantially the same time, and whether they were motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective”).

“Whether the offenses were part of a single behavioral incident is a mixed question of law and fact[.]”

Whether multiple offenses occurred during “a single behavioral incident is a mixed question of law and fact.”

14 effort to obtain a single criminal objective.” (quotations and citations omitted).

umstances that do not apply here, “if a person’s conduct constitutes more than one offense under the laws of this state, the person may be punished for only one of the offenses.” The supreme court has explained that “the law generally prohibits multiple sentences, even concurrent sentences, for two or more offenses that were committed as part of a single behavioral incident.” (quotation omitted).

To determine whether offenses arose from a single course of conduct, the court must consider (1) “whether the offenses occurred at substantially the same time and place and (2) whether the conduct was motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective.” (addressing whether offenses arose out of a “single behavioral incident”) (citation and quotation omitted); (applying 13 the “single behavioral incident” analysis to the question whether prior offenses involving multiple victims arose f

And even assuming that the illicit materials were stored on different SIM cards, the negligible distinction between an image being stored in digital form on one card and a different image being stored on another card found in the same physical location within Gilfillan’s home is too intangible for us to conclude that each image or video was kept in a different “place.” (identifying the “place” where the defendant committed multiple child-pornography offenses as “his bedroom in his mother’s house

mstances that do not apply here, “if a person’s conduct constitutes more than one offense under the laws of this state, the person may be punished for only one of the offenses.” The supreme court has explained that “the law generally prohibits multiple sentences, even concurrent sentences, for two or more offenses that were committed as part of a single behavioral incident.” (quotation omitted) (describing the application of an 33 identical version of Minn. Stat. § 609.035, subd.

The state bears the burden to prove, “by a preponderance of the evidence, that a defendant’s offenses were not part of a single behavioral incident.”

by exercising discretion to not pursue criminal charges in appropriate circumstances.”); –72 D-15 (Minn. 2016) (observing that, in some circumstances, application of a statute “may counsel the cautious exercise of prosecutorial discretion” and “harsh results of the statute can be modified by the charging authorities” (citation omitted) (internal quotatio

“The state bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a defendant’s offenses were not part of a single behavioral incident.”

“Whether the offenses were part of a single behavioral incident is a mixed question of law and fact, so [appellate courts] review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and its application of the law to those facts de novo.”

Whether an offense was committed as “part of a single behavioral incident is a mixed question of law and fact, so we review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and its application of the law to those facts de novo.”

The legislature’s use of “or” matters here because that conjoining term “is typically read as disjunctive.”

1, “generally prohibits multiple sentences, even concurrent sentences, for two or more offenses that were committed as part of a single behavioral incident.” see Minn. Stat. § 609.035, subd.

To determine a single criminal objective, the court examines “the relationship of the offenses to one another,” and whether the acts were “necessary to or incidental to the commission of a single crime and motivated by an intent to commit that crime.” -71 (Minn. 2016) (quotations and citations omitted).

Whether multiple offenses occurred during “a single behavioral incident is a mixed question of law and fact.”

When a district court imposes multiple sentences, “[t]he State bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a defendant’s offenses were not part of a single behavioral incident.”

When a district court imposes multiple sentences, “[t]he State bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a defendant’s offenses were not part of a single behavioral incident.”

“[T]he law generally prohibits multiple sentences, even concurrent sentences, for two or more offenses that were committed as part of a single behavioral incident.” (quotation omitted ).

To determine whether multiple prior offenses formed a single course of conduct, appellate courts consider two factors: “(1) whether the offenses occurred at substantially the same time and place, and (2) whether the conduct was motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective.” (quotations omitted).

Whether multiple offenses occurred during the same behavioral incident presents “a mixed question of law and fact.” Our nonprecedential opinions have followed suit.

Because the two offenses at issue both involve an intent element, 4 we determine whether they are part of the same behavioral incident by evaluating whether: (1) “the offenses occurred at substantially the same time and place,” and (2) the conduct “was motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective.” (quotations omitted).

Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.B.3.c, d. “The State bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a defendant’s offenses were not part of a single behavioral incident.”

see also State v. O’Meara, (stating that a district court’s decision as to whether multiple offenses were committed as part of a single behavioral incident for the purpose of section 609.035 entails factual determinations that will not be reversed unless clear

d 264, 270 (Minn. 2016).

19, 1993); (stating that litigants are bound on appeal by the theory or theories raised below), aff’d

5 “[T]he law generally ‘prohibits multiple sentences, even concurrent sentences, for two or more offenses that were committed as part of a single behavioral incident.’” (d 586, 589 (Minn. 2012)); see also Minn. Stat. § 609.035, subd.

“Whether the offenses were part of a single behavioral incident is a mixed question of law and fact, so we review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and its application of the law to those facts de novo.” State v. Bakken

Moreover, caselaw on possessing child pornography suggests, and Sanders does not dispute, that the state may charge a defendant with a separate count of using a minor in a pornographic work for “each individual pornographic work” given the statutory reference to a singular “work.” -69 (Minn. 2016).