State of Minnesota v. Ian Christopher Mitchell, 2016 Minn. App. LEXIS 40

In November 2003, Ian Mitchell entered ex‑girlfriend K.K.’s home without permission, assaulted her (head lacerations, abrasions), and fled; police arrested him within an hour and found a knife in his vehicle.
State charged Mitchell with two counts of first‑degree burglary: one based on assault and one based on possession of a dangerous weapon during the burglary.
First trial ended in a hung jury; at the second trial, during direct examination, K.K. gave a nonresponsive answer about whether she had been “agreeable” to sexual relations, prompting Mitchell’s mistrial motion.
The district court denied the mistrial; jury convicted Mitchell on both burglary counts.
Mitchell failed to appear for sentencing for over a decade; at sentencing (2015) court entered convictions and concurrent 52‑month sentences on both counts.
On appeal Mitchell (1) challenged denial of mistrial, (2) argued multiple burglary convictions/sentences for a single course of conduct were impermissible, and (3) raised several pro se claims (judicial comment, prosecutorial misconduct, sufficiency, double jeopardy).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Mitchell)	Held
1. Denial of mistrial after nonresponsive testimony	Question/answer was not so prejudicial as to change trial outcome; abundant evidence of guilt	Nonresponsive answer implied nonconsensual sex during relationship, causing irreparable prejudice requiring mistrial	Court affirmed denial; no reasonable probability outcome would differ absent the exchange
2. Multiple convictions/sentences for two burglary counts from single conduct	Section 609.585 allows conviction/punishment for burglary plus "any other crime" committed on entering — argued this permits multiple burglary convictions	Multiple convictions/sentences violate §609.04/§609.035 when arising from a single course of conduct; §609.585's "any other crime" does not include another burglary	Court remanded: vacate one burglary conviction/sentence; held "any other crime" means a crime different from burglary
3. Pro se claims (judge commentary, prosecutorial misconduct, sufficiency, double jeopardy)	Court: issues either unsupported or forfeited; evidence supported possession of knife during burglary	Mitchell argued judge injected opinion, prosecutorial misconduct occurred, double jeopardy, and insufficiency of evidence on weapon count	Court rejected judge‑comment claim (comments were outside jury presence); other pro se claims mostly forfeited or without merit; evidence sufficient on weapon count

State v. Mahkuk, 736 N.W.2d 675 (Minn. 2007) (mistrial standard — reversal only if reasonable probability outcome would differ)
State v. Bahtuoh, 840 N.W.2d 804 (Minn. 2013) (abuse‑of‑discretion review of mistrial denial; district court best positioned to assess prejudice)
State v. Bertsch, 707 N.W.2d 660 (Minn. 2006) (included‑offense analysis compares statutory elements, not facts)
State v. Chavarria‑Cruz, 839 N.W.2d 515 (Minn. 2013) (§609.04 bars multiple convictions for acts in single behavioral incident)
State v. Jones, 848 N.W.2d 528 (Minn. 2014) (determine single course of conduct then consider §609.035 exceptions)
State v. Hodges, 386 N.W.2d 709 (Minn. 1986) (discussed multiple burglary convictions/sentences; Supreme Court vacated one conviction on separate grounds)
State v. Crockson, 854 N.W.2d 244 (Minn. App. 2014) (adjudicating guilt on both burglary counts from same conduct was error)
State v. Holmes, 778 N.W.2d 336 (Minn. 2010) ("any other crime" means crime requiring different statutory elements)
Dupey v. State, 868 N.W.2d 36 (Minn. 2015) (statutory‑interpretation rules; enforce plain meaning when unambiguous)
State v. Moore, 846 N.W.2d 83 (Minn. 2014) (sufficiency review views evidence in light most favorable to verdict)