independent from the sex acts. The jury was given a special interrogatory, but that interrogatory only asked the jury to determine if B.S. suffered an injury distinct from the injuries caused by the sex acts. However, as previously noted, the PCR court found Bryson committed two nonsexual assaults: the first by “dragging or pulling [B.S.] by the arm when [Bryson] took her to the kitchen to retrieve her medication”, and the second by “snatching ... her mace from her hand at the time he took it from her.” We agree with Bryson that, even though the record supports different assaults, the fact finder must make separate factual findings that show separate assaults sup ported the robbery and burglary claims if we are to conclude the offenses do not merge. See Love, 858 N.W.2d at 724 (<HOLDING>). Because the jury was never asked to do the
holding the crimes merge where the jury was not asked to determine whether two assaults occurredeventhough the evidence may have been sufficient to support separate crimes holding intoxication is only a defense to specific intent crimes and not general intent crimes recognizing that dui manslaughter and vehicular homicide are two separate crimes neither being a lesser included offense of the other but holding that a single death cannot support convictions for both crimes holding that even in separate trial other crimes evidence would not have been admissible and identification testimony would have been admissible holding that under the crimes code conspiracy and the completed substantive offense are separate crimes