verdict was based on this evidence, and was unavoidably entangled with the religious doctrine introduced into evidence by the state. Further, we conclude that the error resulting from this entanglement was not harmless. Therefore, we hold that the appropriate remedy is to reverse Bussmann’s convictions and remand this case to the district court for a new trial that does not entangle the court and religion. See In re Welfare of M.P.Y., 630 N.W.2d 411, 418-19 (Minn.2001). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for a new trial. 1 . E.g., United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 228, 105 S.Ct. 675, 83 L.Ed.2d 604 (1985) (discussing application of a Terry stop in the context of ongoing crimes and completed crimes); Kilcoyne — S.W.3d —, 2006 WL 2699903, at *4 (Sept. 21, 2006) (<HOLDING>). 3 . Under Minn.Stat. § 609.344, consent is
holding that courier is not in position of trust holding that where the first amendment does not protect a certain activity there can be no first amendment right of association to engage in that activity holding that co conspirators cannot be held responsible for another member of the conspiracys abuse of a position of trust under section 3b13 of the guidelines holding that member of clergy had no liberty interest to engage in sexual activity through abuse of his position of trust and authority holding defendants prior conviction for assault related to sexual abuse of a minor even though it did not require an act of sexual abuse because it required intent to commit sexual abuse  and such a mens rea demonstrate the offense was one relating to sexual abuse