Cited by

We have held that “when crimes are committed against different persons in the same incident, the district court has discretion to impose one sentence per victim so long as such sentencing does not exaggerate the criminality of the defendant’s conduct.” (holding that the decision to impose three consecutive life sentences for first degree murder was within the discretion of the district court under Minn. Stat. § 609.15 and subject to appellate review only to ensure consecutive sentences we

See Griffin, d at 261-62 (Spreigl evidence); (jury instruction).

1e(a)(3); see also 9 -52 (Minn. 1996) (noting that the recklessness element refers to the actor’s “conscious disregard” of the likely result of his action, and is not inconsistent with a finding that a person also had the specific intent to cause the result of his action).

“Verdicts are legally inconsistent when proof of the elements of one offense negates a necessary element of another offense.”

B. “Verdicts are legally inconsistent when proof of the elements of one offense negates a necessary element of another offense.”

“Verdicts are legally inconsistent when proof of the elements of one offense negates a necessary element of another offense.”

14 Hale, d at 706 (stating that the evidence “d[id] not compel the conclusion that defendant was incapable of forming the requisite specific intent to kill”); –50 (Minn. 1996) (concluding that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s conclusion that the defendant was capable of forming the intent to kill despite the defendant’s claims that he “[drank] beer, used methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin, Dilaudid and smoked marijuana” the day of the murder).

“Verdicts are legally inconsistent only ‘when proof of the elements of one offense negates a necessary element of another offense.’” ().

To be legally inconsistent, a defendant must be convicted on two (or more) offenses, and “proof of the elements of one offense negates a necessary element of another offense.” -52 (Minn. 1996).

A reviewing court “looks to the imposition of sentences in other cases to determine whether sentencing exaggerates the criminality of conduct.” (d 895, 902 (Minn. 1992)).

Verdicts are legally inconsistent only “when proof of the elements of one offense negates a necessary element of another offense.”

“Verdict s are legally inconsistent when proof of the elements of one offense negates a necessary element of another offense.”

at 540 (Hooten, J., dissenting) (citing State v. Cole , , 50-51 (Minn. 1996) ; State v. Moore , , 108 (Minn. 1989) ; State v. Mytych , 292 Minn. 248 , , 282-83 (1972) ; State v. Walker , 279 Minn. 441 , , 508-10 (1968) ; State v. Staples , 126 Minn. 396 , 148 N.W.

“[W]hen crimes are committed against different persons in the same incident, the district court has discretion to impose one sentence per victim so long as such sentencing does not exaggerate the criminality of the defendant’s conduct.”

State v. Cole , , 51-52 (Minn. 1996).

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

Likewise, “[t]he refusal to give a requested jury instruction lies within the discretion of the district court and no error results if no abuse of discretion is shown.”

The state, relying on State v. Cole , argues that the third-degree murder statute must be read along with the entire regime of homicide statutes and that the language "without intent to effect the death of any person" is not an element of the crime but instead relieves the state of the burden of proving specific intent without requiring affi

15 necessary element of another offense.”

-35 (Minn. 2006); Legal inconsistency occurs only “when proof of the elements of one offense negates a necessary element of another offense.”

Legal inconsistency occurs only “when proof of the elements of one offense negates a necessary element of another offense.” State v. Cole

second-degree 17 intentional murder and second-degree felony murder are not legally inconsistent, for no element of one crime negates a necessary element of the other.”

“Verdicts are legally inconsistent when proof of the elements of one offense negates a necessary element of another offense.”