Cited by

“The state has the burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the conduct underlying the offenses did not occur as part of a single behavioral incident.” -42 (Minn. 2000).

The state bears the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that multiple “offenses did not occur as part of the same behavioral incident.”

d 837, 841-42 (Minn. 2000).

The state bears the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that multiple “offenses did not occur as part of the same behavioral incident.”

The state bears the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that multiple “offenses did not occur as part of the same behavioral incident.” -42 (Minn. 2000).

The state bears the burden of proving “by a preponderance of the evidence that the conduct did not occur as part of a single behavioral incident.”

“In determining whether a course of conduct consists of a single behavioral incident we have considered factors of time and place and whether the segment of conduct involved was motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective.” d 837, 841 (Minn. 2000) (quotation omitted).

the person may be punished for only one of the offenses and a conviction or acquittal of any one of them is a bar to pr osecution for any other of them.” This means that, as a general rule, a court can only sentence a defendant once for offenses occurring in a “single behavioral incident.” State v. Williams

2 In this case, the district court art iculated a single reason for its decision to depart upward by three months: the particular vulnerability of the young children.

(concluding that state failed to meet its burden of proving separate criminal objectives).

1 (20 18), “if a person’s conduct constitutes more than one offense under the laws of this stat e, the person may be pu nished for only one of the offenses.” This means that a court ge nerally may not impose separate sentences for offenses that arose from a “single behavioral incident.”

State v. Williams , This statute protects the defendant from multiple sentences and multiple prosecutions and ensures that “punishment .

State v. Williams , -42 (Minn. 2000)

“The state has the burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the conduct underlying the offenses did not occur as part of a single behavioral incident.” State v. Williams , 41–42 (Minn. 2000).

1 (2016); State v. Williams

State v. Williams , -42 (Minn. 2000).

See State v. Williams , -42 (Minn. 2000) (stating that the state has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that offenses did not occur as part of a single behavioral incident).

In determining whether a course of conduct consists of a single behavioral incident, this court considers time, place, and “whether the segment of c onduct involved was motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective.” d 837, 841 (Minn. 2000) (quotati on omitted).

The state bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the conduct underlying the offenses “did not occur as part of a single behavioral incident.” -42 (Minn. 2000).

In determining whether a course of conduct consists of a single behavioral incident, this court considers time, place, and “whether the segment of conduct involved was motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective.” (quotation 7 omitted).

1 (2014); State v. Williams

d 837, 841 (Minn. 2000).

“When conducting a single-behavioral-incident analys is for two intentional crimes, Minnesota courts consider whether the conduct (1) shar es a unity of time and place and (2) was motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective.” d 462, 478 (Minn. App. 2009) (), aff’d