Cited by

But “[w]hether multiple offenses form 15 part of a single behavioral act is a question of fact.” d 725, 731 (Minn. App. 2001).

other steps to ensure that the extraneous information did not impact the verdict” was a “clear and obvious”

In cases with undisputed facts, “the [separate-incident] determination is a question of law subject to de novo review.”

“[T]he 9 district court is in the best position to evaluate whether prejudice, if any, warrants a mistrial.”

otion for mistrial after the jury heard a sheriff say that they believed the defendant was guilty because there was “no reasonable possibility that the sheriff’s remark would affect the verdict of an average jury given the nature of the remark, the weight of evidence supporting conviction and the probable curative effect of the trial court’s voir dire and instructions”); (affirming the denial of a motion for mistrial after a juror asked a potentially prejudicial question because the question was

(deferring to district court’s observations and impressions in denying a mistrial motion).

(explaining that “where offenses are committed and proven independently of the others, they are not part of a single behavioral incident”).

d 725, 731 (Minn. App. 2001).

When facts are not in dispute, this court reviews de novo “[w]hether multiple offenses form part of a single behavioral act.”

“Whether multiple offenses form part of a single behavioral act is a question of fact.”

“Whether multiple offenses form part of a single behavioral act is a question of fact.”

(Minn. App. 3 In his brief to this court, Bean argues that his sentences for the two third-degree controlled-substance crimes should have been 39 months and 45 months, and states that his 21-month sentence for the fifth-degree controlled-substance crime is correct

r standard of review to a district court’s factual findings 9 underlying the determination of whether multiple offenses constituted a single behavioral incident, State v. O’Meara, and a de novo standard of review to the ultimate determination, aff’d

“[T]he district court is in the best position to evaluate whether prejudice, if any, warran ts a mistrial.”

ear-error standard of review to a district court’s factual findings underlying the determination whether multiple offenses constituted a single behavioral incident, State v. O’Meara, and a de novo standard of review to the ultimate determination, aff’d

See State v. Marchbanks , 2 Using the state’s reasoning, the first person to be convicted under a new statute would never receive a downward durational departure, but another person who later commits the exact same crime under the exact same circum stances might be elig i

These constitutional guarantees “do[] not require a perfect trial, but rather one that is fair and does not prejudice the substantial rights of the accused.”

(“A district court has great discretion in sentencing, and we may not substitute our own judgment for that of the district court.”).

This guarantee 8 “does not require a perfect trial, but rather one that is fair and does not prejudice the substantial rights of the accused.”

d 725, 731 (Minn. App. 2001).

This guarantee “doe s not require a perfect trial, but rather one that is fair and does not prejudice the substantial rights of the accused.” d 725, 729 (Minn. App. 2001).

(stating that offenses are not part of 7 the same course of conduct if each offense can be explained without necessary reference to the other).

This guarantee does not include a “perfect trial, but rather one that is fair and does not prejudice the substantial rights of the accused.”

To determine whether a series of offenses constitutes a single behavioral incident, we consider whether the offenses share unity of time and place and “whether the segment of conduct involved was motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective.”

“But where the facts are established, the determination is a question of law subject to de novo review.”

But once “the facts are established, the determination [whether offenses arose from the same behavioral incident] is a question of law subject to de novo review.”