State v. Hansmann

• Decision Date: 27 December 2022
• Docket Number: A22-0143
• Parties: State of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Steven Edward Hansmann, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

State of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Steven Edward Hansmann, Appellant.

No. A22-0143

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

December 27, 2022

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn.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

Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-CR-20-1419

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Anna R. Light Assistant County Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

John L. Lucas, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Reyes, Presiding Judge; Slieter, Judge; and Bryan, Judge.

BRYAN JUDGE

In this direct appeal from the judgment of conviction for possession of a firearm by an ineligible person, appellant raises the following three arguments: (1) the trial evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because his stipulation of prior conviction did not establish that his prior conviction was for a crime of violence; (2) the prosecutor committed misconduct by eliciting improper testimony from its witness and referring to the testimony in closing arguments; and (3) the district court erred in concluding that there was probable cause to issue a search warrant for appellant's residence. We affirm.

FACTS

Appellant Steven Edward Hansmann was charged with three counts of possession of a firearm or ammunition by an ineligible person and one count of fifth-degree controlled substance possession after a warrant was executed on his residence. Investigating law enforcement officers received information from a concerned citizen who suspected that Hansmann was selling methamphetamine from his residence. Officers examined the trash left for collection outside the residence and recovered two plastic bags containing methamphetamine residue, a vape cartridge containing THC, and mail addressed to Hansmann. The next day officers sought and obtained a search warrant for the residence. Officers executing the warrant located and retrieved methamphetamine, boxes of ammunition, and multiple firearms from the residence. Specifically, in the basement of the residence, law enforcement officers recovered boxes of ammunition from on top of a green safe along with several firearms and ammunition from inside the green safe. In the garage area of the basement, law enforcement officers recovered a small amount of methamphetamine hidden inside a bolt.

Sergeant Michael Teneyck from the City of New Hope Police Department conducted a Mirandized interview of Hansmann. During the interview, Hansmann admitted to sleeping in an upstairs bedroom and on a couch in the basement of the residence. Hansmann also admitted to past methamphetamine use and that the methamphetamine found inside the bolt belonged to him. Hansmann described each of the firearms recovered from inside the safe and stated that he owned three of the firearms. He further stated that he had moved the green safe knowing it contained firearms and that he was aware of the ammunition on the top of the safe. Hansmann admitted that he was prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition.

Hansmann filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search, arguing that the search warrant lacked probable cause. The district court denied the motion to suppress. At a pretrial conference, Hansmann stipulated to an essential element of the charged offense, agreeing that on all relevant dates he was ineligible to possess a firearm:

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Let's start with the stipulation . Let me explain. Okay. Mr. Hansmann, you are charged with possessing ammunition or a firearm while ineligible. What I do at the beginning of the case is I read a summary of the complaint. And that charge alleges that on or about January 14, 2020, in Hennepin County, Minnesota, Steven Edward Hansmann possessed ammunition or a firearm. And Steven Edward Hansmann has been convicted or adjudicated delinquent in this state or elsewhere of a crime of violence for which the sentence expired on or after August 1, 1993.

Now, in order to -- typically defendants do not want the jury to know that you have a previous conviction. Okay? So the way that it has been handled in the past is that the parties stipulate to your previous conviction so that the jury doesn't hear it. If you stipulate to your previous conviction, I will -- instead of saying -- or describing the charge as possessing ammunition or a firearm conviction or adjudicated delinquent for crime of violence, I would just describe the charge as possessing a firearm or ammunition while ineligible. Okay?

Now, the stipulation would say, "On all relevant dates defendant was ineligible to possess a firearm or ammunition, and defendant was convicted of ineligible person in possession of a firearm on June 16, 2016, in Stearns County, Court File Number 73-CR-13-7926." And that way the jury will not be told that you have a previous conviction for a crime of violence. And I would only say that you were -- the charge was that you were possessing a firearm or ammunition while ineligible. Is that something that you want to do? Enter into the stipulation?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

Hansmann also stated he had discussed the stipulation with his attorney, and the district court continued with the following waiver of Hansmann's right to a jury trial on the stipulated element of the offense:

THE COURT: And, Mr. Hansmann, do you give up your right to have a jury decide whether or not you have had a prior conviction of possessing a firearm or ineligible - while ineligible?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. And you also give up the right to have the State prove the prior conviction; correct?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

The case proceeded to trial and the state presented photographs depicting the items recovered and their location as well as testimony regarding the investigation and execution of the search warrant. The state also elicited testimony from Teneyck regarding the Mirandized interview with Hansmann. Specifically, Teneyck stated that Hansmann asked him "who set me up?" Hansmann objected to this answer, but the district court overruled the objection. In the closing argument, the prosecutor referenced this answer before concluding that Hansmann knowingly possessed the ammunition and firearms:

He's charged with one count of possessing a firearm and two counts of possessing ammunition. He had 40 boxes and 10 firearms. You just need to find him guilty of one of those firearms and two of those counts of ammunition. Lastly, I want to remind the jury what [Hansmann] told Sergeant Teneyck: Who turned me in? [Hansmann] knew he possessed these 10 firearms and 40 boxes of ammunition. This is a very straightforward case. And, for those reasons, I'm asking you to convict [Hansmann] of all four counts. Thank you.

In addition, at one point during the rebuttal argument, the prosecutor referenced this answer once again:

And, lastly, I want to remind you-[Hansmann] was cooperative. He was cooperative because he was caught. He was caught with 10 firearms and 40 boxes of ammunition in the place he resided. He was cooperative. He said, yeah, three of those guns, I own; six were from my father; one was from my niece. And that is my green safe. And, at the end of the interview, you heard him-

DEFENSE COUNSEL: Your Honor, I object and ask to approach.

THE COURT: No. You may continue.

PROSECUTOR: Thank you, Your Honor. He indicated that someone had set him up. That's how [Hansmann] ended his interview. [Hansmann] possessed ten firearms in that green safe. I would submit to you-he certainly had access to that safe. But, even if you believe he didn't, even if you believe, yep, he gave the access code to his mom and brother, and he was trying to do the right thing-that's still not-possession. It's irrelevant.

Hansmann, through his attorney, moved for a mistrial based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct. The district court denied the request for a mistrial, and the jury found Hansmann guilty of all four counts.

At sentencing, the district court sentenced Hansmann to an executed sentence of 60 months for unlawful possession of a firearm and an executed sentence of 21 months for fifth-degree possession of a controlled substance, to be served concurrently. The district court did not address counts two or count three because it determined that these convictions involved the same behavioral incident as the conduct in count one. Hansmann appeals.

DECISION

I. Sufficiency of the Evidence Regarding Hansmann's Prior Conviction

Hansmann challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to establish proof that he had a prior crime of violence. We conclude that because Hansmann stipulated to this essential element, he is unable to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence presented to establish that element.^[1]

To establish guilt for the felony charged at count one, unlawful possession of a firearm under Minnesota Statutes section 624.713, subdivision 1(2) (2022), the state must prove that the defendant was previously convicted of a crime of violence and that after the conviction for a crime of violence, the defendant possessed a firearm. "[A] prior conviction is an element which the state must prove at trial and which defendant has a right to have a jury decide." State v. Kuhlmann, 806 N.W.2d 844, 849 (Minn. 2011) (quotation omitted); see also State v. Gilbert, A20-0530, 2021 WL 668011, at *3 (Minn.App. Feb. 22, 2021), rev denied (May 18, 2021) (analyzing the prior conviction for a crime of violence as a distinct element). A defendant, however, "may agree to waive a jury determination of a particular element of the offense by stipulating to it." State v. Hinton, 702 N.W.2d 278, 281 (Minn.App. 2005), rev. denied (Minn. Oct. 26, 2005). We review de novo the nature...