The district court gave cautionary instructions on Spreigl evidence both when the stipulation was read and as part of its final instructions. The district court sentenced appellant to concurrent 98-month terms. The legislature amended the burglary statute in 1988 by adding the emphasized language thereby in appropriate cases no longer requiring the state to prove the element of wrongful intent upon nonconsensual entry of a building. Minn. Laws ch. Appellant argues that the state failed to prove that he entered the victim's apartment without consent or that he remained in the victim's apartment after she withdrew consent.
Due process requires that the state prove all elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
In a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, our review is limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did. A review of the record shows that the state met its burden of proving that appellant entered the victim's apartment without her consent. At trial, H.B. testified that she rented the upstairs apartment of a house. She testified that on the night of the incident the door at the bottom of the staircase by which entry was gained was unlocked and she did not know if it was open or closed. She testified that she heard appellant knocking on the staircase wall as he walked up the stairs.