In support of this argument, appellant cites State v. Roberts , where this court stated, "[a]bsent an intent to commit a crime in the building, the same conduct constitutes an included misdemeanor offense of trespass." 350 N.W.2d 448, 451 (Minn. App. 1984) ; see Minn. Stat. § 609.04, subd. 1(4) (2016) (an included offense may be a crime necessarily proved if the crime charged were proved). The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that an element of criminal trespass is that the defendant had no legal claim of right to be on the premises where the trespass is alleged to have occurred. State v. Brechon , 352 N.W.2d 745, 750 (Minn.
The intent must be to commit some independent crime after entering the building illegally. The Court of Appeals so held in State v. Roberts, 350 N.W.2d 448 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984), and that holding is consistent with the wording of the burglary statute, Minn.Stat. § 609.58 (1982), as well as with the views of most authorities, see, e.g., Model Penal Code § 221.1 comment 3(c) (1980).
To support this claim, Mosenden relies on this court's prior holding that trespass is a lesser-included offense of burglary because "[a]bsent an intent to commit a crime in the building, the same conduct constitutes an included misdemeanor offense of trespass." State v. Roberts, 350 N.W.2d 448, 451 (Minn. App. 1984). This court has frequently cited Roberts for the premise that, although the burglary statute does not contain express language requiring the defendant to know he lacked consent to enter the premises, because trespass is a lesser-included offense he still must know that he lacks consent.
However, misdemeanor trespass in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.605, subd. 1(b)(4) (2014), which is a lesser-included offense of burglary, requires that one "intentionally" "occupies or enters the . . . building of another, without claim of right or consent of the owner." See State v. Roberts, 350 N.W.2d 448, 450-51 (Minn. App. 1984); Minn. Stat. § 609.04, subd. 1(4) ("An included offense may be . . . [a] crime necessarily proved if the crime charged were proved."). "Intentionally" means that the actor either has a purpose to do the thing or cause the result specified or believes that the act performed by the actor, if successful, will cause that result.
The district court determined that the first and third requirements of the Dahlin test were satisfied because trespass is a lesser-included offense of burglary and because the evidence provided a rational basis for the jury to convict Hicks of trespass. See State v. Roberts, 350 N.W.2d 448, 451 (Minn.App. 1984) ("Absent an intent to commit a crime in the building, the same conduct constitutes an included misdemeanor offense of trespass."). The district court determined, however, that the second requirement was not satisfied because the evidence did not provide a rational basis for the jury to acquit Hicks of burglary.
Webb, 440 N.W.2d at 430. This court will reverse a conviction due to lack of sufficient evidence only when it seriously doubts that the appellant is guilty. State v. Roberts, 350 N.W.2d 448, 451 (Minn.App. 1984). Appellant argues that because he took no evasive actions, there is insufficient evidence to establish his intent to flee a peace officer.
Because one cannot commit first-degree burglary without also committing trespass, trespass is a lesser-included offense of first-degree burglary. State v. Roberts, 350 N.W.2d 448, 450-51 (Minn.App. 1984). We must next determine whether the evidence supports a rational basis for an acquittal of the first-degree burglary offense and a conviction of the trespass offense.
We rarely reverse a conviction due to insufficient evidence and will do so only when we have "`grave doubt as to defendant's guilt'" and "reversal is `in the interest of justice.'" State v. Roberts, 350 N.W.2d 448, 451 (Minn.App. 1984) (quoting State v. Housley, 322 N.W.2d 746, 751 (Minn. 1982)).
Feb. 24, 1988) (denying request for new trial and sustaining conviction after reviewing record because the court did not have grave doubt as to defendant's guilt); State v. Formo, 416 N.W.2d 162, 167 (Minn.App. 1987), review granted (Minn. Feb. 17, 1988) and review dismissed (Minn. July 28, 1988) (holding the evidence was insufficient and reversing conviction because there were grave doubts as to defendant's guilt); State v. Roberts, 350 N.W.2d 448 (Minn.App. 1984) (holding the evidence was insufficient and reversing conviction because there were grave doubts as to defendant's guilt). Because we do not have grave doubts as to Ross' guilt, we decline to address the question of this court's power to order a new trial in the interest of justice.
Appellant next contends that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support her convictions. Reversal of a conviction due to lack of sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction will occur only where the reviewing court has "grave doubt as to defendant's guilt." State v. Roberts, 350 N.W.2d 448, 451 (Minn.App. 1984). A reviewing court must view the record in the light most favorable to the conviction, State v. Webb, 440 N.W.2d 426, 430 (Minn.