Cited by

To determine whether the crimes were part of a single behaviora l incident, a court looks at (1) “whether the offenses occurred at substantially the same time [and place]” and (2) “whether they were motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective.”

See State v. Bakken , (stating that although posse ssion is a continuing offense, a possession crime is completed when the offender takes possession of the prohibited item).

If all offenses at issue are intentional crimes, “we determine whether the crimes were part of a single behavioral incident by considering (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.” (citations and quotations omitted).

See, e.g. , State v. Bakken , , 270-72 (Minn. 2016) ; State v. Cole , , 53 (Minn. 1996) ; State v. Norregaard , , 449 (Minn. 1986).

State v. Bakken , , 270 (Minn. 2016).

(stating a possession crime, while continuous, “is complete when the offender takes possession of the prohibited item”).

(stating a possession crime, while continuous, “is complete when the offender takes possession of the prohibited item”).

” d 264, 270 (Minn. 2016).

State v. Bakken , , 270 (Minn. 2016).

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

State v. Bakken , , 267 (Minn. 2016).

State v. Bakken , , 271 (Minn. 2016).

“Subject to various exceptions, if a person’ s conduct constitutes mo re than one offense under the laws of this state, the person may be punished for only one of the offenses.” (quo ting Minn. Stat. § 609.035, subd.

In determining whether a statute is ambiguous, we also consider the statute as a whole “to harmonize and give effect to all its parts, presuming that the Legislature intended the entire statute to be effective and certain.” ( citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“On” and “ab out” are separated by the disjunctive “or.” (stating that the word “or” “requir[es] that only one of the possible factual situations linked by the ‘or’ be present”); see also The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1238 (5th ed. 2011) (defining “or” as “[u]sed to indicate an alternative”).

“Or” is a disjunctive term, “requiring that only one of the possible factual situations linked by the ‘or’ be present.”

(“The word ‘or’ is typically read as disjunctive..,.”), .

Compare State v. Bakken , –26 (Minn. App. 2015) (holding that collecting child pornography for “personal sexual gratification” was too broad a criminal 9 objective to be a single criminal act), aff’d, (M inn.

See State v. Bakken , –69 (Minn. 2016) (identifying that an offender may be prosecuted for either knowingly possessing computer containing child porno graphy, possessing images of child pornography, or both).

This renders illegal “ both the possession of a pornographic work itself and the possession of a computer storing a pornographic work.” State v. Bakken

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

In interpreting a statute, we seek to “ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature.” Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2014)

Possession of a controlled substance is “a continuing offense” that “is complete when the offender takes possession of the prohibited item.”

When all crimes at issue contain an intent element, they arise from a single behavioral incident if they (1) “occurred at substantially the same time and place” and (2) were “motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective.” (quotations omitted).