[singleshot_]

Now we will see why my previous comment was relevant.

A lesser included offense is an offense which itself constitutes one element of another offense. Under the doctrine of multiplicity, you may either be tried for the lesser included or the offense for which the lesser included is an element — but not both. To be charged with both would run afoul of the constitutional provisions limiting double jeopardy.

This is not part of any Utah statute, it’s a general constitutional principle under US law.

Why you made me say this twice, I do not know.

[giantg2]

I didn't make you say anything. It looks like you replied to the wrong person, and in a unconstructive way. Seems you should have replied to the person about stacking penalties. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40310758

You could have been constructive and said that criminal trespass was a lesser included offense under section 2d. Or should I just reply to you using a few semirandom words? Relevant search terms include: conversation, context, sentences, convey complete ideas

[singleshot_]

Talking to Computer Guy about legal principles yields unsurprising results.

Honestly, if you just Google the search terms it’s easier for both of us because you can tailor your search to your level of understanding.

[giantg2]

The principle is well understood. You could have pointed out how that principle applied - that the lesser included offense of criminal trespass existed under 2d. Researching principles does nothing if there is a missing fact. Or are you referring to yourself as "Computer Guy"?

If it's too much work for you to engage in a thoughful conversation (per the guidelines), just don't engage at all next time. We don't need low effort "search terms..." comments on here.

[singleshot_]

Sounds like the principle isn’t too well understood if you’re