Cited by

And the supreme court has explained that “[a] lesser offense is necessarily included in a greater offense if it is impossible to commit the latter without also committing the former.”

“Whether an offense is a ‘lesser-included offense’ is determined by examining the elements of the offense rather than the facts of a particular case.” d 425, 428 (Minn. App. 1997) (), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

Another way to describe it is that “[a] lesser offense is necessarily included in a greater offense if it is impossible to commit the latter without also committing the former.”

at 781 (quotation omitted); (“A lesser offense is necessarily included in a greater offense if it is impossible to commit the latter without also committing the former.”).

d 456, 457 (Minn. 1986).

State v. Roden , , 457 (Minn. 1986) (citation omitted).

“In determining whether an offense is a necessarily included offense, we must look at the elements of the offense rather than the facts of the par ticular case.” (citation omitted).

“A lesser offense is necessarily included in a greater offense if it is impossible to commit the latter without also committing the former.” State v. Roden

See State v. Roden , (“A lesser offense is necessarily included in a greater offense if it is impossible to commit the latter without also committing the former.”).

Bellcourt v. State , 39 ; State v. Roden

hallenge state’s fingerprint expert); (finding misconduct where prosecut or questioned defendant about his failure to call potentially helpful witnesses); (finding misconduct where prosecutor commented about defendant’s failure to call specific named witness) , aff'd as modified, .

Minn. Stat. § 609.04 (2012) prohibits conviction for a lesser-included offense, which includes both a “lesser degree of the same crime” or a “crime necessarily proved if the crime charged were proved.” A lesser crime is necessarily proved, in relation to the charged crime, “if it is impossible to commit the latter without also committing the former.”

The two crimes have different intent requirements, (), and our interpretation of the phrase “past consideration" does not affect the element of intent.

“In determining whether an offense is a necessarily included offense, we must look at the elements of the offense rather than the facts of the particular case.”

(“The greater offense of theft by check involves a defendant issuing a check knowing he is not entitled to do so (ie.[,] knowingly issuing a bad check) as part of a scheme whereby he intentionally defrauds another person into transferring property to him.”).