Cited by

We are likewise unpersuaded by McDonald’s on which McDonald relies even though the supreme court concluded in McAdoo that the defendant’s crimes did not arise out of a single course of conduct.

“The [s]tate bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a defendant’s offenses were not part of a single behavioral incident.” Id.; (providing that the state has the burden at sentencing to prove “facts which establish” that two offenses are not part of the same course of conduct for purposes of calculating a defendant’s criminal-history score).

The state “has the burden at a sentencing hearing of establishing the facts necessary to justify consideration of out-of-state convictions in determining a defendant’s criminal history score.”

ating criminal-history points, see Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.B.5 (Supp. 2023), the state must “lay[] foundation for the court to do so,” and “has the burden at a sentencing hearing of establishing the facts necessary to justify consideration of out-of-state convictions in determining a defendant’s criminal history score,”

Yancy cites State v. McAdoo , for the proposition that, for purposes of calculating a criminal -history score, the state bears the burde n of proving that a defendant’s prior convictions do not arise from a single behavioral incident.

State v. McAdoo , (concluding that a defendant generally may not receive criminal -history points for more than one offense arising out of a single behavioral incident); Minn. Sent.

State v. McAdoo , State v. Maley , ( “[T]he district court may not use out -of-state convictions to calculate a defendant’s criminal -history score unless the state lays foundation for the court to do so.”).

State v. McAdoo , Minn. Sent.

has the burden at a sentencing hearing of establishing the facts necessary to justify consideration of out-of-state convic tions in determining a defendant’s criminal history score.”

“The state has the burden of proving the facts which establish the divisibility of a defendant’ s course of conduct for purposes of section 609.035.”

It is well-settled law in Minnesota that the State has the burden of proving "the facts necessary to justify consideration of out-of-state convictions in determining a defendant's criminal history score" at sentencing, State v. McAdoo , , 109 (Minn. 1983) (citations omitted), and nothing we say today changes that rule.

It is well -settled law in Minnesota that the State has the b urden of pro ving “the facts necessary to justify consideration of out -of-state convictions in determining a defendant’s criminal history score” at sentencing , State v. McAdoo , (citations omitted), and nothing we say today c hanges that rule .

“T he state has the burden of proving the facts which establish the divisibility of a defendant’s course of conduct for purposes of sect ion 609.035.”

has the burden at a se ntencing hearing of establishing the facts necessary to justify c onsideration of out-of-s tate convictions in determining a defendant’s criminal history score.”

has the burden at a sent encing hearing of establishing the facts necessary to justify consideration of out-of-state convictions in determining a defendant’s criminal history score.” State v. McAdoo

“[T]he main reason for generally excluding police photographs is that the jurors might infer from them 10 that the defendant has been involved in prior criminal conduct.”

“The state has the burden of proving the facts which establish the divisibility of a defendant’s course of conduct for purposes of section 609.035.”

(“[T]he main reason for generally excluding police photographs is that the jurors might infer from them that the defendant has been involved in prior criminal conduct.).” However, when the identity of the perpetrator of a crime is disputed, booking photographs may be admissible to prove identity.

has the burden at a sentencing hearing of establishing the facts necessary to justify consideration of out-of-state convictions in determining a defendant’s criminal history score.”

where the defendant received separate sentences for attempted robbery and assault because the record showed that he did not fire his gun to facilitate the commission of the crime or his escape, but fired it after making a decision to “get” the police.