State v. Leathers, No. A09-926 (Minn. App. 6/8/2010)

• Decision Date: 08 June 2010
• Docket Number: No. A09-926.,No. A09-934.,A09-926.,A09-934.
• Parties: State of Minnesota, Appellant (A09-926), Respondent (A09-934), v. Steven Dale Leathers, Respondent (A09-926), Appellant (A09-934).
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

Page 1

State of Minnesota, Appellant (A09-926), Respondent (A09-934), v.Steven Dale Leathers, Respondent (A09-926), Appellant (A09-934).

No. A09-926.

No. A09-934.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

Filed June 8, 2010.

Appeal from the District Court, Itasca County, FileNo. 31CR064218.

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, James B. Early, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and John J. Muhar, Itasca County Attorney, Grand Rapids, Minnesota, for respondent.

David W. Merchant, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Suzanne M. Senecal-Hill, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota, for appellant.

Considered and decided by Stoneburner, Presiding Judge; Schellhas, Judge; and Connolly, Judge.

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

STONEBURNER, Judge.

Appellant challenges five convictions of first-degree assault for firing a single gunshot from inside his home as five peace officers attempted to enter it to execute a search warrant.Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that he had specific intent to cause fear in more than two individuals.Appellant also argues that the jury instructions were unnecessary, confusing, or misstated the law such that he was denied a fair trial; and that the district court abused its discretion by sentencing him for all five convictions.The state asserts that the district court erred in holding that appellant is entitled to supervised release after serving two-thirds of his sentence.We affirm the convictions but reverse the district court's ruling that appellant is entitled to supervised release and remand for correction of appellant's sentence.

FACTS

Four Itasca County Sheriff's deputies and one state trooper went to the home of appellantSteven Dale Leathers to serve a search warrant.The five peace officers approached Leathers's side door on foot from an alley.Another deputy was parked in a marked squad car with a view of Leathers's front door.

Unknown to the officers, Leathers was, at that moment, anticipating a visit from two drug dealers who had threatened to kill Leathers if he did not pay them money that he owed for drugs.Leathers had loaded his gun and turned up his stereo loud enough that it could be heard outside.Leathers testified that he did not hear the officers announce that they were law-enforcement officers: he only heard banging on his door and saw that the door was being kicked in as someone said "[k]ick it, kick it, kick it, kick it."Leathers fired one shot.He testified that he intended to fire at the floor to scare people at the door, but the bullet hit the doorknob and ricocheted into a wall.

Leathers thought he heard someone ask, "Was that a gunshot?"Leathers shouted, "[C]ome on in now, get me now, motherf—ers."Then Leathers heard the peace officers yelling "Sheriff."¹Leathers testified that he then threw his gun down and tried to open the door, but it was jammed, so he instructed the officers to kick the door in.

The officers entered, handcuffed Leathers, and asked him if he had in his possession "anything he should not have."Leathers told the officers that there were drugs in his pockets.Leathers apologized for shooting at the officers.The officers found five baggies of methamphetamine in Leathers's pockets.In the search of his home, the officers found drug paraphernalia and a bag with a "crystal powder," later determined to be fake drugs often used to dilute methamphetamine.Leathers's .22 handgun loaded with nine rounds in the magazine and one round in the chamber was found on a shelf, and an ejected shell from the handgun was found inside a model ship on the fireplace mantel.One officer testified that the marked squad car was clearly visible from the location where the drug paraphernalia and shell casing were found.

The state charged Leathers with five counts of first-degree assault, use of deadly force against a peace officer—one count for each officer who was standing outside of Leathers's door when Leathers shot the doorknob.Leathers was also charged with one count of second-degree controlled-substance crime and one count of third-degree controlled-substance crime.Under a plea agreement, the drug charges were resolved with Leathers pleading guilty to a single amended charge of fourth-degree controlled-substance crime.Only the assault charges were tried to a jury.

At trial, over Leathers's objection, the jury was instructed that: (1) in order to be found guilty of assaulting a peace officer, Leathers need not have known that the people outside his home were peace officers when he fired the gun; (2) Leathers's intent to assault the individuals outside of his door could be inferred from the natural and probable consequences of his actions; and (3) self-defense and defense-of-dwelling defenses could not be considered by the jury if the state met its burden of proof that the peace officers announced their presence and were performing official duties at a location where a person was committing a crime.

Leathers was found guilty of five counts of first-degree assault, use of deadly force against a peace officer, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.221, subd. 2(a)(2008).The district court denied Leathers's motion for a new trial.The district court imposed concurrent sentences for Leathers's six convictions, totaling 189 months, without the possibility of supervised release.Leathers moved for resentencing, challenging the length of his sentence and denial of supervised release.The district court declined to change the length of Leathers's sentence, but held that Leathers would be eligible for supervised release after serving 126 months (two-thirds of his sentence).In this consolidated appeal, Leathers challenges his convictions and sentence, and the state appeals the district court's ruling on supervised release.

DECISION

I.Sufficiency of evidence

In considering a claim of insufficient evidence, this court's review is limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, is sufficient to allow the fact-finder to reach the resulting verdict.State v. Webb,440 N.W.2d 426, 430(Minn.1989).The reviewing court will not disturb the verdict if the fact-finder, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude the defendant was guilty of the charged offense.State v. Alton,432 N.W.2d 754, 756(Minn.1988).Recognizing that the jury is in the best position to determine credibility, this court assumes that the jury believed testimony supporting the verdict and disbelieved evidence to the contrary.State v. Henderson,620 N.W.2d 688, 705(Minn.2001);see alsoState v. Doppler,590 N.W.2d 627, 635(Minn.1999)(stating that determining witness credibility is usually the exclusive province of the jury).

Minn. Stat. § 609.221, subd. 2(a)(2008), prohibits assaulting "a peace officer . . . by using or attempting to use deadly force against the officer . . . while the officer . . . is engaged in the performance of a duty imposed by law, policy, or rule."Assault is defined as either "an act done with intent to cause fear in another of immediate bodily harm or death; or . . . the intentional infliction of or attempt to inflict bodily harm upon another."Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 10(2008)."2017With intent to' . . . means that the actor either has a purpose to do the thing or cause the result specified or believes that the act, if successful, will cause that result."Id.,subd. 9(4)(2008).Assault is a specific-intent crime, which means that the state must prove "that the defendant acted with the intent to produce a specific result."State v. Vance,734 N.W.2d 650, 656(Minn.2007).Intent is a state of mind that generally may be proved by inference from the defendant's words and actions in light of surrounding circumstances.State v. Thompson,544 N.W.2d 8, 11(Minn.1996).

Leathers contends that it was impossible for the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to attempt to inflict bodily harm on, or cause fear of immediate bodily harm in, all five officers because "the evidence at best shows that [Leathers] had the specific intent to assault two of the officers."Although Leathers testified that he believed that there were two drug dealers at his door, he also testified that he thought there might be more than two people outside the door: "I thought they would have brought some more people with them."Leathers testified that he wanted to scare "them," referring to whomever was outside his door.Leathers's own testimony, therefore, is sufficient evidence to support a finding that he intended to inflict fear in everyone at his door.

In State v. Hough,the supreme court rejected Hough's argument that he only intended to cause fear of harm in one person in a home into which he fired numerous shots from a semiautomatic weapon.585 N.W.2d 393, 397(Minn.1998).Hough was charged with one count of assault for each of the six people in the home at the time of the shooting even though Hough was not aware of the number of people in the home.Id.The supreme court affirmed all six convictions, stating that "[w]hen an assailant fires numerous shots from a semiautomatic weapon into a home, it may be inferred that the assailant intends to cause fear of immediate bodily harm or death to those within the home."Id.

Leathers argues that this court should not rely on Hough because the supreme court erroneously used the general- and not specific-intent standard, and Hough was decided before Vance, which clearly instructs that assault is a specific-intent crime.SeeVance,734 N.W.2d at 656(noting that specific intent means that a defendant acted with the intent to produce a specific result).Leathers also asserts that Hough is distinguishable from the facts of this case because here, Leathers fired only one shot from within his own...