## Facts

- An emergency (ex parte) order for protection (OFP) barred Peter Allen Colvin from entering his ex-wife’s residence “for any reason, even if invited.”
- The OFP was valid for one year and prohibited entry into her current or future residence.
- A teenager staying at the residence returned home and found Colvin inside watching television and drinking beer.
- The teenager asked Colvin to leave, and he left without incident.
- There were no signs of forced entry; the homeowner believed Colvin may have entered through an unlocked window.
- The state charged Colvin with first-degree burglary, alleging that his unlawful entry was accompanied by intent to commit a felony-level OFP violation (based on repeated OFP violations).

## Issues

1. Whether an OFP violation consisting solely of entering a protected residence can, by itself, satisfy the “intent to commit a crime” element required for first-degree burglary under Minnesota law.
2. Whether the record supported an intent to commit any additional crime beyond the entry-based OFP violation.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the burglary conviction.
- The court held that burglary requires intent to commit a crime independent of the unlawful entry.
- A no-entry OFP violation that is complete upon entry is not sufficiently independent from the unlawful entry to satisfy burglary’s intent element.
- The stipulated record did not support an intent to violate other OFP provisions or to commit any additional offense beyond entering the residence.

## Legal Principles

- Minnesota burglary requires unlawful entry with intent to commit a crime that is separate from, and not merely the illegal entry itself.
- An entry-based OFP violation is analogous to trespass for burglary purposes because it is complete upon entry and does not supply an independent criminal objective.
- The state must prove intent to commit some additional offense (beyond the prohibited entry) to meet burglary’s intent requirement, even if the entry also constitutes a felony-level OFP violation.
- Where the factual record shows only unauthorized presence and no evidence of additional intended criminal conduct, burglary liability cannot be based solely on the entry-based OFP violation.

## Conclusion

The court held that an OFP violation consisting only of entering a protected residence cannot alone satisfy burglary’s independent-crime intent requirement, and it reversed Colvin’s first-degree burglary conviction because the record showed no intent to commit any separate offense beyond the unlawful entry.


State v. Colvin, 645 N.W.2d 449 (Minn. 2002)