Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 609. CRIMINAL CODE
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 609.04 (2026)

Conviction Of Lesser Offense

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subdivision 1.Lesser offense prosecution.

Upon prosecution for a crime, the actor may be convicted of either the crime charged or an included offense, but not both. An included offense may be any of the following:

(1) a lesser degree of the same crime; or

(2) an attempt to commit the crime charged; or

(3) an attempt to commit a lesser degree of the same crime; or

(4) a crime necessarily proved if the crime charged were proved; or

(5) a petty misdemeanor necessarily proved if the misdemeanor charge were proved.

Subd. 2.Conviction; bar to prosecution.

A conviction or acquittal of a crime is a bar to further prosecution of any included offense, or other degree of the same crime.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 360 cases (32 in the last 5 years), 1964–2035 · leading case: State v. Bertsch, 707 N.W.2d 660 (Minn. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Bertsch, 707 N.W.2d 660 (Minn. 2006). · cites it 30× “We hold that Bertsch’s convictions and sentences for possession of child pornography must be vacated under Minn.Stat. § 609.04 (2004) as included offenses, that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its assignment of a severity level to the dissemination offense,…”
State v. Pflepsen, 590 N.W.2d 759 (Minn. 1999). · cites it 18× “Minn.Stat. § 609.04, subd. 1 (1998). The statutory definition of included offenses includes “[a] crime necessarily proved if the crime charged were proved.”
State v. Osborne, 715 N.W.2d 436 (Minn. 2006). · cites it 11× “See Minn.Stat. § 609.04, subd. 1(4) (2004). A defendant may not be convicted of both the charged offense and a lesser-included offense for the same criminal act.”
State v. Johnson, 616 N.W.2d 720 (Minn. 2000). · cites it 13× “Minn.Stat. § 609.04 (1998) prevents multiple convictions based on the same conduct committed against the same victim.”
State v. Richardson, 670 N.W.2d 267 (Minn. 2003). · cites it 8× “Richardson made a timely request for jury instructions on the lesser offenses, which the trial court denied.”
State v. Chavarria-Cruz, 839 N.W.2d 515 (Minn. 2013). · cites it 14× “Under our jurisprudence, the court should have addressed Chavarria-Cruz’s claims under Minn.Stat. § 609.04 (2012) and Minn.Stat.”
Spann v. State, 740 N.W.2d 570 (Minn. 2007). · cites it 10× “We affirm the postconviction court’s denial of relief with respect to Spann’s conviction for first-degree murder in violation of Minn.”
Walker v. State, 394 N.W.2d 192 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 24× “Burglary Counts Walker argues that under Minn. Stat. § 609.04 all of his burglary convictions must be vacated because they are lesser included offenses of the felony murder conviction.”
State v. Holmes, 778 N.W.2d 336 (Minn. 2010). · cites it 13× “Minn.Stat. § 609.04, subd. 1 (“Upon prosecution for a crime, the actor may be convicted of either the crime charged or an included offense, but not both.”
State of Minnesota v. Ian Christopher Mitchell, 881 N.W.2d 558 (Minn. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 12× “”, Minn.Stat. § 609.04, subd. 1. “A crime necessarily proved if the crime charged were proved” is an “included offense.”
State v. Lindsey, 632 N.W.2d 652 (Minn. 2001). · cites it 6× “In this court, in addition to the issues raised before the postconviction court, Lindsey argues that two of his convictions must be vacated under Minn.Stat. § 609.04, subd. 1(1) (2000). We affirm in part and remand for a determination of whether restitution to the murder…”
Riley v. State, 792 N.W.2d 831 (Minn. 2011). · cites it 6× “nial of his petition, arguing that he is entitled to postconviction relief because: 1) the jury instruction stating that the jury could convict on both first-degree murder and second-degree murder was erroneous; 2) the jury verdicts were inconsistent; 3) the indictment violated…”
Show all 360 citing cases →
— Minn. Stat. § 609.04(1996) — 1 case
State v. Whittaker, 568 N.W.2d 440 (Minn. 1997).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.