to achieve a fair determination of the defendant’s guilt or innocence of each crime. Minn. R.Crim. P. 17.03, subd. 3(1). Pursuant to the rule, a district court must first decide whether the joined offenses are related, and if so, the court must decide whether severance is nonetheless required because joinder would be prejudicial. State v. Profit, 591 N.W.2d 451, 459 (Minn.1999). Offenses are related when they are “part of a single behavioral incident or course of conduct.” Id. at 458 (citations omitted). In determining whether the offenses are part of a single behavioral incident or course of conduct, courts examine (1) “how the offenses were related in time and geographic proximity;” and (2) “whether the actor was motivated by a single criminal objective.” Dukes, 544 N.W.2d at 20 (<HOLDING>) Here, Dick told the police he had been banging
holding that the 9circuit court did not abuse its discretion in refusing a motion to sever separate charges of rape committed against the appellants two nieces holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing a motion to sever separate charges of rape committed against the appellants two nieces holding district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to sever numerous substantively unconscionable terms from arbitration agreement holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to sever trials where the time between the two crimes was a matter of only a few minutes the proximity was within one block and each crime was motivated by the objective of obtaining money through robbery holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to accept the defendants guilty pleas to two counts of the indictment and stating that even if the trial court erred the error had not prejudiced the defendant because he was found guilty by the jury of the charges to which he intended to plead and the evidence of the other crimes would have been admissible in the trial for the first degree murder charge