State v. Gurneau

• Decision Date: 27 June 2022
• Docket Number: A21-1288
• Parties: State of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Raphael Ulisses Gurneau, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

State of Minnesota, Respondent,
v.
Raphael Ulisses Gurneau, Appellant.

No. A21-1288

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

June 27, 2022

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

Cass County District Court File No. 11-CR-20-1718.

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Benjamin T. Lindstrom, Cass County Attorney, Chelsea M. Langton, Assistant County Attorney, Walker, Minnesota (for respondent).

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Mark D. Nyvold, Special Assistant Public Defender, Fridley, Minnesota (for appellant).

Considered and decided by Reilly, Presiding Judge; Slieter, Judge; and Frisch, Judge.

FRISCH, Judge.

In this direct appeal from the judgment of convictions for being a felon in possession of a firearm and second-degree assault, appellant argues that the warrantless reentry of

1

police into a bedroom of a residence constituted an unlawful search and that the circumstantial evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant intended to cause the police officer to fear immediate harm or death. Appellant also argues that his conviction for obstructing legal process must be vacated. We affirm.

FACTS

In October 2020, Leech Lake Police Officers Ayshford and Hulsebus responded to reports of a domestic disturbance at a residence. The homeowner met Officer Ayshford at the front door of the residence and directed him toward the bedroom where the disturbance was taking place. The bedroom door was locked, so Officer Ayshford knocked and announced police presence. When the door opened, Officer Ayshford observed appellant Raphael Ulisses Gurneau "pointing a firearm at [him]."

Officer Ayshford drew his weapon and stepped to the side, instructing Gurneau to drop the firearm. Gurneau replied, "No" and walked out of Officer Ayshford's line of view before returning seconds later without the firearm. Officer Ayshford directed Gurneau to lie down on the floor. Gurneau did not comply, and Officer Ayshford physically escorted him to the ground. At that time, Officer Hulsebus entered the bedroom and helped secure Gurneau in handcuffs. With Gurneau secured, Officer Ayshford tried to locate the firearm but failed to locate it before needing to assist Officer Hulsebus in escorting Gurneau outside and into a squad car. Gurneau physically resisted the officers while they took him to the vehicle. Once the officers placed Gurneau inside the vehicle, Officer Ayshford returned to the bedroom to locate and secure the firearm, which he found hidden behind a television.

2

Based on these events, respondent State of Minnesota charged Gurneau with three crimes: (1) unlawful possession of a firearm in violation of Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd. 1(2) (2020); (2) second-degree assault in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.222, subd. 1 (2020); and (3) obstructing the legal process in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.50, subd. 1(2) (2020).^[1]

Gurneau moved to suppress the evidence and dismiss the unlawful-possession-of-a-firearm charge, arguing that Officer Ayshford's warrantless reentry into the bedroom was unconstitutional. In October 2020, the district court held an evidentiary hearing on Gurneau's motion to suppress. The district court received into evidence Officer Ayshford's testimony and body-camera footage. The district court denied Gurneau's motion, concluding that the exigent-circumstances exception to the warrant requirement supported Officer Ayshford's reentry for the "express purpose of seizing the firearm." The matter proceeded to trial.

At trial, the two responding officers testified, and the state submitted Officer Ayshford's body-camera footage into evidence. Officer Ayshford testified that, when he drew his weapon in response to Gurneau pointing a firearm at him, his first thought was that "[he] was going to die that morning." Officer Ayshford also testified that he returned to the bedroom in order to secure the firearm. He testified that, based on his training and experience, "it's best to secure the weapon, whether it be a firearm or whatever for the

3

safety, my, [sic] law enforcement safety and anyone else around." Gurneau testified in his own defense and did not substantively contest the officers' testimony.

The jury found Gurneau guilty on all three counts. The district court sentenced Gurneau to concurrent 60-month and 63-month sentences for unlawful possession of a firearm and second-degree assault, respectively. The district court entered a conviction for obstructing legal process but imposed no sentence.

This appeal follows.

DECISION

I. The district court did not err by denying Gurneau's motion to suppress the evidence.

Gurneau argues that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress the evidence because no exigent circumstances existed to justify Officer Ayshford's warrantless reentry into the bedroom.

When reviewing a pretrial order on a motion to suppress, we review the district court's factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. State v. Gauster, 752 N.W.2d 496, 502 (Minn. 2008). We independently review the facts to determine whether the district court erred as a matter of law by not suppressing the evidence. State v. Askerooth, 681 N.W.2d 353, 359 (Minn. 2004).

The United States and Minnesota Constitutions protect an individual's right against unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. Const. amend. IV; Minn. Const. art. I, § 10. Warrantless searches of a home are presumptively unreasonable. State v. Othoudt, 482 N.W.2d 218, 221-22 (Minn. 1992). If a warrantless entry is made, evidence discovered

4

must be suppressed unless an exception to the warrant requirement applies. Id. at 222. The burden lies with the state to establish that an exception to the warrant requirement applies. State v. Ture, 632 N.W.2d 621, 627 (Minn. 2001). One of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement is the existence of exigent circumstances. Othoudt, 482 N.W.2d at 223.

Here, the district court determined that the exigent-circumstances exception applied. Exigent circumstances can be established either by a single factor or "totality of the circumstances." State v. Gray, 456 N.W.2d 251, 256 (Minn. 1990). We evaluate the facts found by the district court to determine whether exigent circumstances existed. Id. One recognized single-factor exigent circumstance-and the one referenced by the district court here-is the "possibility of danger to human life." In re Welfare of B.R.K., 658 N.W.2d 565, 579 (Minn. 2003).

The district court found that exigent circumstances existed because the presence of...