State v. Henderson
| Decision Date | 30 January 2017 |
| Docket Number | A16-0575 |
| Citation | 890 N.W.2d 739 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Tchad Tu HENDERSON, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Anthony C. Palumbo, Anoka County Attorney, Kelsey R. Kelley, Assistant County Attorney, Anoka, Minnesota (for respondent).
Douglas V. Hazelton, Halberg Criminal Defense, Bloomington, Minnesota (for appellant).
Considered and decided by Rodenberg, Presiding Judge; Halbrooks, Judge; and Kirk, Judge.
Appellant Tchad Tu Henderson appeals his criminal vehicular operation (CVO) convictions. He argues that: (1) the district court erred when it denied his motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of probable cause; (2) there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to support the district court's finding that he operated the motor vehicle; and (3) the district court committed plain error when it convicted him of CVO as charged in count 1 of the complaint. Appellant asks this court to reverse his convictions and dismiss the charges against him. Since appellant was tried and convicted, his probable cause challenge is not relevant on appeal. See State v. Holmberg , 527 N.W.2d 100, 103 (Minn.App.1995), review denied (Minn. Mar. 21, 1995). Because we conclude that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to support the court's finding that appellant operated the motor vehicle, we affirm. However, the district court erred when it entered a conviction on count 1 of the complaint, and we reverse entry of that conviction and remand to the court to amend the warrant of commitment and to determine if resentencing is necessary.
On July 22, 2014, appellant was charged with one count of CVO causing great bodily harm due to grossly negligent conduct, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.21, subd. 1(1) (2012), and three counts of CVO causing great bodily harm as a result of operating a motor vehicle in a negligent manner while under the influence of alcohol negligent/alcohol, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.21, subd. 1(2)(i) (2012). Appellant moved to dismiss the charges, arguing that the state failed to establish probable cause that he operated the motor vehicle. Following a contested hearing, the district court concluded that there was sufficient probable cause to support the charges and denied appellant's motion.
The district court held a one-day court trial on November 18, 2015. Appellant stipulated that the injuries B.H., B.F., and A.S. sustained in the crash constituted great bodily harm, that the crash occurred on July 20, 2014 in Anoka County, and that he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crash. The district court considered the following evidence on the remaining contested element of whether appellant operated the vehicle:
B.H. testified that she went to a bar with B.F. to meet appellant and A.S. B.H. did not consume alcohol that night, but the others did. At the bar, appellant appeared to be drunk. He was slurring his words, tripping over his own feet, and he did not seem very coherent. When the bar closed, the group decided that B.H. would drive them to appellant's friend's house because she was sober. B.H. did not have a valid driver's license. Appellant was the front-seat passenger and began arguing with B.H. over the directions to his friend's residence.
B.H. testified that she pulled over at a gas station, verified appellant's friend's address, and started the navigation system on appellant's cellphone. Before pulling out of the gas station, B.H. instructed everyone to put on their seatbelts, which made appellant angry and argumentative, but he complied.
After B.H. pulled out of the gas station, the arguing subsided, but then appellant told B.H. that she missed a turn, and he "took the steering wheel and yanked it towards" himself. This caused B.H. to lose control of the vehicle and it crashed, landing upside down. B.H. testified that when appellant pulled the steering wheel she had both hands on the wheel but could not resist because of the force he used.
Officer Adam Jacobson of the Coon Rapids Police Department testified that after the crash, B.H. provided a preliminary breath test sample in an ambulance on scene, and that the results indicated that she did not have any alcohol in her system.
Officer William Hammes of the Coon Rapids Police Department testified that he identified appellant at the scene of the crash. At that time, appellant told Officer Hammes that he could not remember what happened. Officer Hammes also identified B.H. and spoke to her in the ambulance. B.H. relayed the same version of events that she testified to at trial.
Officer Hammes testified that he went to the hospital to obtain a statement from appellant. Appellant told Officer Hammes that "out of nowhere they crashed" and that after the crash B.H. yelled at him about grabbing the steering wheel. Appellant said that he could not remember if he grabbed the steering wheel. After appellant was released from the hospital, he was transported to the Anoka County Jail and during the drive to the jail he began insisting to Officer Hammes that he did not grab the steering wheel.
Appellant initially testified that he was not arguing with B.H. after they left the bar, but then he testified that they were arguing, but it was not serious. Appellant testified that he wanted B.H. to pull over so they could figure out how to get to his friend's house. Appellant then described the accident, testifying that he was still arguing with B.H., who was distracted and missing turns. Then, just before the crash, appellant saw the telephone pole and wire and said, "look out," because he believed the vehicle was going to hit the pole.
Appellant denied touching the steering wheel and claimed that B.H.'s version of the accident was a lie. Appellant testified that he was drinking alcohol before the accident and that he believed his alcohol concentration was a 0.15 or 0.16. He also confirmed that right after the crash, he told law enforcement that he could not remember what had happened, and that at the hospital he told law enforcement that he could not remember grabbing the steering wheel.
The district court found appellant guilty of all four counts of CVO, entered convictions on all four counts, and sentenced appellant on counts 2-4.
This appeal follows.
I. Was there sufficient evidence presented at trial to support the district court's finding that appellant operated the motor vehicle?
II. Did the district court commit plain error when it convicted appellant of CVO as charged in count 1 of the complaint?
When a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim involves a question of whether the defendant's conduct meets the statutory definition of an offense, an appellate court is presented with a question of statutory interpretation that is reviewed de novo. See State v. Hayes , 826 N.W.2d 799, 803 (Minn.2013). When interpreting a statute, we give its words and phrases their plain and ordinary meaning. State v. Peck , 773 N.W.2d 768, 772 (Minn.2009). The threshold issue in a statutory-interpretation analysis is whether the statute's language is ambiguous. Id. In considering a claim of insufficient evidence, this court's review is limited to a thorough analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to allow the jurors to reach the verdict that they did. State v. Webb , 440 N.W.2d 426, 430 (Minn.1989). The reviewing court must assume that "the jury believed the state's witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary." State v. Moore , 438 N.W.2d 101, 108 (Minn.1989). This is especially true when resolution of the matter depends mainly on conflicting testimony. State v. Pieschke , 295 N.W.2d 580, 584 (Minn.1980).
"[Appellate courts] use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence." State v. Palmer , 803 N.W.2d 727, 733 (Minn.2011). The reviewing court will not disturb the verdict if the factfinder, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and for the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the charged offense. Bernhardt v. State , 684 N.W.2d 465, 476–77 (Minn.2004).
Appellant was charged with four counts of CVO under Minn. Stat. § 609.21, subds. 1(1) (), 1(2)(i) (). Minn. Stat. § 609.21 (2012) does not contain a definition of "operation." These subdivisions have been renumbered and their language has been modified since appellant was charged and convicted, but the new statutory language did not add a definition of operate. See Minn. Stat. § 609.2113, subds. 1(1),1 1(2)(i) (2014).2
Appellant argues that there was insufficient evidence presented at trial that he operated the vehicle. Appellant argues that, even if he grabbed the steering wheel, he was only in physical control of the vehicle and was not operating it, which is insufficient to support a CVO conviction. Appellant argues that this court should use the definition of "operate" provided in CRIMJIG 29.02 (), which provides that "[a] person ‘operates' a motor vehicle when the person manipulates or activates any of the controls of a motor vehicle necessary to put the vehicle into motion." 10A Minnesota Practice , CRIMJIG 29.02 (2016). Appellant asserts that,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Henderson
...that "operation" includes the "manipulation of the steering wheel of a moving motor vehicle by a passenger." State v. Henderson , 890 N.W.2d 739, 744 (Minn. App. 2017).2 The court’s conclusion was based on the "policy of giving impaired driving laws the broadest possible effect in favor of ......
-
State v. Fry
...judgment of conviction . . . as conclusive evidence of whether an offense has been formally adjudicated"); State v. Henderson, 890 N.W.2d 739, 745-46 (Minn. App. 2017) (requiring reversal of conviction and remand for amendment of warrant of commitment when district court has erroneously con......
-
State v. Ulmer-Kelly
...convictions under different sections of a criminal statute for acts committed during a single behavioral incident." State v. Henderson, 890 N.W.2d 739, 745 (Minn. App. 2017) (quotation omitted), aff'd 907 N.W.2d 623 (Minn. 2018). This court decided a case involving identical DWI convictions......