Cited by

On appeal, the defendant argued that the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury that they must 1 “Legal authorities use the terms ‘single course of conduct’ and ‘single behavioral incident’ interchangeably.” n.2 (Minn. App. 2016), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.

Although Minn. Stat. § 609.585 (2018) states that a burglary conviction “is not a bar to conviction of or punishment for any other crime committed,” Minnesota courts have interpreted the phrase “any other crime” to mean “a crime different from burglary.” rev. denied (Minn. Aug.

We engaged in a careful analysis of our precedent

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. M itchell, d 558, 563–64 (Minn. App. 2016), review denied (Minn. Aug.

“And unless a statutory exception applies, ‘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.’” (quoting Mi nn.

6, allows a court to convict and sentence a defendant for a sexual assault and domestic assault); (holding that “any other crime” in a burglary exception case meant “a c rime different from burglary”), review denied (Minn. Aug.

at 819-20 (evaluating the strength of the state’s case in denying a mistrial motion); State v. Mitchell , (deferring to the district court’s “evaluation of prejudicial impact” in denying mistrial motion), review 10 denied (Minn. Aug.

See State v. 8 Mitchell, (c oncluding that first-degree burglary (dangerous weapon) is not a lesser-included offense of first-degree burglary (assault) because each crime “requires proof of an element that the other does not”), review denied (Minn. Aug.

See State v. Mitchell , review denied (Minn. Aug.

(“Section 609.04 bars multiple convictions under different sections of a criminal statute for acts committed durin g a single behavioral incident.” (footnote omitted) (quotation omitted)), review denied (Minn. Aug.

1 “Legal authorities use the terms ‘single course of conduct’ and ‘single behavioral incident’ interchangeably.” n.2 (Minn. App. 2016), review denied (Minn. Aug.

2 “To determine whether an offense is an included offense falling under [section 609.04], a court examines the elements of the offense instead of the facts of the particular case.” (alteration in original), review denied (Minn. Aug.

“To determine whether an offense is an included offense falling under [section 609.04], a court examines the elements of the offense instead of the facts of the particular case.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Aug.

In criminal-sexual-conduct cases, the criteria for determining whether offenses arose out of a single behavioral incident include: (1) whether the conduct involved was motivated by a desire to obtain a single criminal objective and (2) whether 1 “Legal authorities use the terms ‘single course of conduct’ and ‘single behavioral incident’ interchangeably.” n.2 (Minn. App. 2016), review denied (Minn. Aug.