State v. Bauer
2011 Minn. LEXIS 5
Minn.2011Background
- Bauer was convicted of sale of ecstasy (third degree) and failure to affix tax stamps (tax-stamp statute); count 1 and 2.
- The district court sentenced on counts 1–4 under Guidelines; count 5 (conspiracy) not sentenced due to separate incident finding.
- A May–July 2006 undercover operation in Warroad used a confidential informant in a storefront to facilitate drug buys.
- The informant signed receipts, bought drugs, and drugs were kept in a locked cabinet in the storefront buy room.
- Denise Bauer, Cody’s mother, was hired to work in the storefront; Cody delivered drugs including marijuana and ecstasy.
- The tax-stamp violation occurred before the ecstasy sale and at a different location than the Cl’s store; ecstasy was possessed prior to sale.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do ecstasy sale and tax-stamp violation arise from a single incident? | Bauer | Bauer | No; not a single behavioral incident |
| Is the tax-stamp offense an intentional crime for § 609.035 purposes? | Bauer | State | Assumed intentional crime for purposes of this case |
| Do time and place factors show a single behavioral incident? | Bauer | State | Not the same time/place; factors support separate incidents |
| Were the criminal objectives for the two offenses identical? | Bauer | State | Objectives different: sale vs. tax evasion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bookwalter, 541 N.W.2d 290 (Minn. 1995) (basis for multi-offense sentencing bar under 609.035)
- State v. Johnson, 141 N.W.2d 517 (Minn. 1966) (time/place/objective analysis governs whether offenses arise from single incident)
- State v. Kooiman, 185 N.W.2d 534 (Minn. 1971) (recognizes factors in determining single-incident analysis)
- State v. Krampotich, 163 N.W.2d 772 (Minn. 1968) (divisible series of incidents; no single incident)
- State v. Scott, 298 N.W.2d 67 (Minn. 1980) (possession of burglary tools and burglary can be same incident)
- Mercer v. State, 290 N.W.2d 623 (Minn. 1980) (possession crimes; scope of criminal objectives matters)
- State v. Gould, 562 N.W.2d 518 (Minn. 1997) (intentional crime analysis applied to controlled-substance sales)