State v. S. Frydenlund

Summary

The court affirmed Frydenlund's conviction for criminal trespass after the jury acquitted him of burglary. It held that the verdict form correctly allowed the jury to consider the lesser included offense after a not-guilty verdict on burglary, because criminal trespass does not require proof of the additional intent or conduct required for burglary. Although Frydenlund did not preserve his objection, the court reviewed the double-jeopardy claim for plain error and found no constitutional violation.