State v. Haynes
| Decision Date | 27 February 2023 |
| Docket Number | A21-1082 |
| Parties | State of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Kissie Marie Haynes, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn.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-20-16222
Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Kristyn Anderson, Minneapolis City Attorney, David S. Bernstein Assistant City Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)
Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Melissa Haley, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Jesson, Presiding Judge; Connolly, Judge; and Johnson, Judge.
On an afternoon in July 2020, as appellant Kissie Marie Haynes entered her apartment building with her three-year-old son, she threw the contents of her coffee cup at one of her fellow residents. Haynes was charged with fifth-degree assault and disorderly conduct. A jury found Haynes guilty of both charges.
On appeal from her convictions, Haynes alleges that the evidence is insufficient to support her convictions for fifth-degree assault and disorderly conduct. She further alleges that statements made by the prosecutor during closing argument amounted to prosecutorial misconduct; that the district court violated her constitutional right to be present at trial when it proceeded in her absence on the final day of trial; and that the postconviction court abused its discretion when it dismissed her petition related to these claims. Because both the district court and postconviction court's decisions are supported by the law and fall within their wide discretion, we affirm.
As M.H. returned home, she walked towards the main entrance of her apartment building. Once there, she walked through a secured door held open by Haynes, who was with her young son. Haynes then threw a cup of hot coffee on M.H. Law enforcement arrived at the scene and cited Haynes for misdemeanor fifth-degree assault[1] and respondent State of Minnesota added the charge of disorderly conduct later.[2]
In July 2021, a five-day jury trial was held. The jury heard testimony from M.H., as well as the two responding police officers. In addition, the apartment building surveillance footage of the incident was played for the jury, as were the recordings from the officers' body-worn cameras. Haynes did not testify.
M.H.'s testimony spanned two days of trial. During it, she explained that she opened the unsecured, exterior door of the apartment building and walked towards the secured, interior door when she saw Haynes-a woman that she did not know-and a young child standing near the entryway. The building's surveillance footage shows Haynes holding the secured, interior door open with one hand, while grasping a coffee cup in her other hand. According to M.H.'s testimony, as she made her way past Haynes and her son, she said "excuse me" to Haynes, who was still holding the door open.
As she walked through the open doorway, M.H. testified that she felt a hot liquid, later confirmed to be coffee, hit her upper back. The building's security footage shows that M.H. never made physical contact with Haynes or her son as she walked past them. And M.H. testified that her hijab and clothing were soaked from the coffee. Confused at what had just taken place, M.H. turned to Haynes and said "excuse me" again.
M.H. described Haynes's demeanor as angry or mad. She testified that Haynes looked violent. And started screaming obscenities at M.H., demanding to know why M.H. would think that she could go through the door that Haynes was holding open. Haynes's tone was "very loud and scary," and M.H. began to cry.
A few moments later, another resident attempted to enter through the same entrance and called a security guard that worked in the building. While she waited for the security guard, M.H. removed her hijab because it was still wet. Haynes continued cursing and making derogatory comments about M.H. for about 15 minutes after she threw the coffee, according to M.H., who then stepped outside of the building to call the police. During the 911 call, M.H. told the dispatcher that she did not need immediate medical attention. But M.H. testified that she suffered lingering pain caused by the hot coffee contacting her skin and that her skin was red and swollen for over two weeks.
The responding officers also testified. One officer described M.H.'s demeanor as "distraught." Haynes told the officers at the scene that she poured coffee on M.H. because M.H. pushed her son to get inside the building. But the officer explained that, based on his subsequent review of the surveillance footage, he determined that M.H. made no contact with the child.
Haynes was present for the first four days of the trial. On the fifth and final day- during which closing arguments and jury instructions were to take place-Haynes was not present. And her attorneys were unable to reach her. The district court delayed the proceedings for Haynes's counsel to attempt to contact their client. After about an hour, Haynes's counsel confirmed that she had been able to reach Haynes by telephone and learned that Haynes had been in the hospital since the previous evening.
Outside the presence of the jury, counsel described Hayne's medical situation and confirmed that Haynes specifically and affirmatively stated that she wanted the trial to proceed without her. The state had no objection to proceeding in Haynes's absence. The district court agreed with the parties and determined that the trial would proceed without Haynes.
Prior to the district court's final jury instructions, the court asked the parties to review an additional jury instruction, given the change in circumstances Haynes's absence created. Neither party objected to the proposed instruction, and the jury was called into the courtroom to receive the final jury instructions.[3]
During these instructions, at Haynes's request, the district court instructed the jury on the defense of self or others stating:
The legal excuse of defense of self or others is available only to those who act honestly and in good faith. A person may use force in defense of self or others only if the person was not the aggressor and did not provoke the offense .... To prove guilt the [s]tate has a burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that at least one of the requirements of the self-defense has not been met.
And the court included the following defense-of-property instruction:
The legal excuse of defense of property is available only to those who act honestly and in good faith. A person may act in defense of property only if the person was not the aggressor and did not provoke the trespass on or unlawful interference with the property .... Haynes is not guilty of a crime if she acted as authorized by law in resisting a trespass upon or other unlawful interference with property. To prove guilt the [s]tate must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that at least one of the requirements of defense of property has not been met.
After about 20 minutes of deliberation, the jury returned two guilty verdicts for fifth-degree assault and disorderly conduct.
The district court imposed a stayed sentence of 90-days' local confinement and placed Haynes on probation for one year for the fifth-degree assault conviction, and it imposed a concurrent sentence of five-days' local confinement for the disorderly-conduct conviction. Haynes appealed from the convictions and moved this court to stay the appeal to pursue postconviction relief. This court granted the motion. In her subsequent postconviction petition, Haynes requested that the court vacate her conviction and grant a new trial or schedule an evidentiary hearing to develop the record regarding whether Haynes knowingly and voluntarily waived her right to be present during all stages of the trial. The postconviction court denied the petition and we reinstated this appeal.
Haynes appeals.
On appeal, Haynes raises three issues: (1) whether sufficient evidence supports her two convictions; (2) whether the prosecutor engaged in misconduct during closing argument; and (3) whether the district court erred in allowing the jury trial to continue in her absence during the final day of trial. We review each issue in turn.
Haynes argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain her convictions for fifth-degree assault and disorderly conduct. Alternatively, she contends that the state failed to present sufficient evidence that her actions were not justified as performed in defense of others or defense of property. Below, we first address the framework governing sufficiency-of-the-evidence arguments, before turning to the specific convictions and asserted defenses.
When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we review the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, was sufficient to allow the jury to convict the defendant of the charged offense. State v. Robertson, 884 N.W.2d 864, 871 (Minn. 2016). We "assume the fact-finder disbelieved any testimony conflicting with that verdict." State v. Balandin, 944 N.W.2d 204, 213 (Minn. 2020) (quotation omitted). We defer to the jury's credibility determinations and will not reweigh the evidence on appeal. State v. Pendleton, 759 N.W.2d 900, 909 (Minn. 2009). "[W]e will not disturb the verdict if the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the charged offense." State v....
To continue reading
Request your trial