also State v. Peck, 539 N.W.2d 170, 175 (Iowa 1995) (“The ‘reckless’ alternative for first-degree burglary connotes that the act was not done wffh specific intent, but ‘fraught with a high degree of danger ... so obvious from the facts that the actor knows or should reasonably foresee that harm will probably ... flow from the act.’ ” (emphasis added) (citation omitted)). Robbery’s assault element has a restriction as to the purpose behind the assault, and the burglary instruction does not. We note the elements of the lesser offense do not need to be described in the same way as the elements in the greater offense in order for merger to take place. See Coffin, 504 N.W.2d at 895. So long as the statutes convey the “same thought,” the offenses are merged. See Hickman, 623 N.W.2d at 852 (<HOLDING>). But nowhere in the burglary instruction is
holding that specific intent is not element of assault resulting in serious bodily injury holding variance between the specific injury alleged in the indictment and the evidence at trial was not fatal where it was only necessary to allege under nc gen stat  143184a that the defendant caused serious injury and the actual injury alleged was surplusage holding that victims injuries went beyond serious injury necessary to indict for an assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill or inflict serious injury and constituted the permanent disfigurement contemplated by ncgs  14324 holding that it was a double jeopardy violation to convict and sentence for both dui with serious bodily injury and driving without a valid license with serious bodily injury based on an injury to a single victim holding purposely inflicts  serious injury and intended to cause serious injury convey the same specific intent such that it is impossible to commit one without the other