Cited by

See, (concluding that a retrial is not barred unless the misconduct was committed with the intent to provoke a mistrial and that there was “no indication that the prosecutor’s apparently inadvertent pretrial discovery violation [of failing to disclose police reports to the defense] was intended to

Minnesota caselaw instructs that a second trial is barred only if “the mistrial resulted from governmental misconduct intended to provoke the mistrial request.” Fuller II, d at 726 (citation omitted); (concluding that a retrial is not barred unless the misconduct was committed with the intent to provoke a mistrial and that there was “no indication that the prosecutor’s apparently inadvertent pretrial discovery violation [of failing to disclose police reports to the defense] was intended to

“Possession of two controlled substances at the same time and place, for personal use, constitutes a single behavioral incident.” State v. Barnes, 12 (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.

in the same location (his house)” and “were spurred by the same objective— to possess controlled substances for personal use and with the intent to sell to pay for his personal 9 use.” Warner compares his case to that in State v. Barnes, in which we concluded that the defendant’s offenses of possession of two different drugs with intent to sell “were part of the same behavioral incident.” rev. denied (Minn. Jan.

review denied (Minn. Jan.

The statements here provide a similar amount of information regarding weapons or the potential for violence as those in Wasson and State v. Barnes , review denied (Minn. Jan.

(finding a firearm in the defendant’s apartment); d 805, 813 (Minn. App. 2000) (finding d rugs in the defendant’ s bedroom), review denied (Minn. Jan.

(concluding sufficient evidence supported controlled- substance offense where defendant’s effects were found “in close proximity” to the substance); cf. Florine, d at 611 (“Because defendant did not have exclusive possession of the automobile, one [cannot] automatically infer fr om th

Similarly, in State v. Barnes , this cour t concluded that an unannounced entry was justified because evidence of drug dealing and gang affiliation existed, and because the defendant “had a prior criminal record and that the level of drug trafficking was very high.” review denied (Minn. Jan.

“A conviction based on circumstantial evidence merits stricter scrutiny, requiring that the circumstances proved must be inconsistent with a rational hypothesis of innocence.” State v. Barnes , review denied (Minn. Jan.

did not rely on the simple generalization, rejected in Richards, that all drug dealing involves weapons.” review denied (Minn. Jan.

See, -88 (Minn. 1985); d 805, 812-13 (Minn. App. 2000), review denied (Minn. Jan.

“A person may constructively possess drugs jointly with another person.” review denied (Minn. Jan.

(“ [C]riminal conduct committed to avoid apprehension for another offense is generally considered part of the same behavioral incident.”), review denied (Minn. Jan.

“[C]riminal conduct committed to avoid apprehension for another offense is generally considered part of the same behavioral incident.” d 805, 813 (Minn. App. 2000), review denied (Minn. Jan.

See Bourke, d at 926; (justifying unannounced entry based on evidence of drug dealing, gang affiliation, appellant’s prior criminal record, and a high level of drug trafficking), review denied (Minn. Jan.

room of defendant’s home); State v. Carr, 311 Minn. 161, 163, (finding drugs in the defendant’s home); State v. Wiley, 295 Minn. 411, 422, -76 (1973) (finding drugs in the place where the defendant either lived or spent a lot of time); (finding drugs in the defendant’s apartment); (finding drugs in the defendant’s bedroom), review denied (Minn. Jan.

“Where the material facts are not in dispute, this court independently reviews whether a no-knock entry was justified.” review denied (Minn. Jan.

review denied (Minn. Jan.

See State v. Carlson, 291 Minn. 368, 380-81 , (holding that the multiple sentences of defendants based on 29 counts of possession of obscene materials in a retail store with intent to sell were a single behavioral incident); (holding ■that possession of marijuana and cocaine in the same bedroom, packaged for sale, was a single behavioral incident), review denied (Minn. Jan.

Appellant argues that this admission contradicts the officer’s application statement that “people frequenting the address hav[e] dangerous weapon criminal histories as well as histories reflective of obstructing the legal process.” “Where the material facts are not in dispute, this court independently reviews whether a no-knock entry was justified.” (), review denied (Minn. Jan.