State v. Mattson
| Decision Date | 18 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | A18-0952 |
| Parties | State of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Christopher Paul Mattson, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).
Reversed
Polk County District Court
Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and
Gregory Widseth, Polk County Attorney, Scott A. Buhler, Assistant County Attorney, Crookston, Minnesota (for respondent)
Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Benjamin J. Butler, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Rodenberg, Presiding Judge; Cleary, Chief Judge; and Reilly, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
We reverse appellant's conviction for failure-to-appear pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 609.49, subd. 1(a) (2016), because there was insufficient evidence to prove appellant intentionally failed to appear.
Appellant Christopher Mattson had three pending felony-level criminal court cases, and he made a first appearance on each of those cases. The complaints and the conditional-release orders notified him that "failure to appear for court when required to do so is a criminal offense in the State of Minnesota, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 609.49." Nevertheless, on April 18, 2017, Mattson failed to appear for a pretrial hearing for his three open criminal cases. The district court judge told Mattson's counsel that a bench warrant would be issued if Mattson failed to appear at the rescheduled hearing on April 20, 2017. After Mattson again failed to appear, the district court issued a bench warrant for Mattson's arrest. Approximately four months later, in August 2017, Mattson turned himself in at the county jail.
Based upon Mattson's nonappearance on April 20, 2017, respondent, the state, charged Mattson with felony-level failure to appear pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 609.49, subd. 1(a). During the court trial on the failure-to-appear charge, the state took testimony from two witnesses and submitted 13 exhibits into evidence. The state's first witness, an employee with Polk County District Court, testified to the court records, including the criminal complaints and orders for conditional release in Mattson's three underlyingcriminal cases. The court employee also testified about the court minutes, a document that provides a summary of what transpired during the daily court calendar on Mattson's cases. The state offered into evidence the court minutes for each of Mattson's three open cases from April 18, 2017 and April 20, 2017, all of which indicated that Mattson was not present for the scheduled hearings. The last exhibit offered by the state was the court minutes from the first appearance on this matter, held on August 18, 2017. The state did not offer into evidence any exhibits which demonstrated that Mattson had received actual notice of the scheduled court hearings on either April 18 or April 20. The state's second witness, a Polk County Sheriff's deputy, testified that in August 2017 Mattson turned himself in on the outstanding warrant from his April failure to appear. Mattson exercised his constitutional right to not testify at the court trial.
The district court issued an order finding Mattson guilty of failure to appear and imposed a felony-level sentence of one year and one day, stayed execution of that sentence, and placed Mattson on probation for two years.
This appeal follows.
The evidence presented by the state was insufficient to establish Mattson intentionally failed to appear.
Mattson argues that this court must reverse his failure-to-appear conviction because the evidence was insufficient to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he violated the failure-to-appear statute. Minnesota Statute 609.49, subdivision 1(a) provides:
A person charged with or convicted of a felony and released from custody, with or without bail or recognizance, whointentionally fails to appear when required after having been notified that a failure to appear for a court appearance is a criminal offense . . . is guilty of a crime for failure to appear and may be sentenced to not more than one-half of the maximum term of imprisonment or fine, or both, provided for the underlying crime for which the person failed to appear, but this maximum sentence shall, in no case, be less than a term of imprisonment of one year and one day or a fine of $1,500, or both.
The parties agree, and the district court found, that Mattson was charged with three felonies, that he had been released from custody, that he had been given notice that failure to appear was a criminal offense, and that the act took place on April 20. The only issue is whether the state sufficiently proved that Mattson intentionally failed to appear where there is no evidence that he had notice of the dates of the court appearances he missed.
Because the intent element of a crime involves a state of mind, it is often proven with circumstantial evidence. State v. Davis, 656 N.W.2d 900, 905 (Minn. App. 2003), review denied . When reviewing a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, appellate courts apply a two-step test to determine the sufficiency of the evidence. State v. Moore, 846 N.W.2d 83, 88 (Minn. 2014). First, we must "identify the circumstances proved." Id. (citing State v. Andersen, 784 N.W.2d 320, 329 (Minn. 2010)). In identifying the circumstances proved, this court assumes that the fact-finder resolved any factual disputes in a manner that is consistent with the verdict. Id. A fact-finder is in the best position to evaluate witness credibility and "weigh the evidence regarding intent." Davis, 656 N.W.2d at 905. Second, we independently examine the "reasonableness of the inferences that might be drawn from the circumstances proved," and then "determine whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt andinconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt." Moore, 846 N.W.2d at 88 (quotations omitted). We must consider the evidence as a whole and not examine each piece in isolation. State v. Petersen, 910 N.W.2d 1, 7 (Minn. 2018).
Here, the circumstances proved are: (1) Mattson had been given notice that failure to appear for a required court hearing was a separate crime; (2) court hearings in Mattson's three pending cases were held on April 18 and April 20, 2017; (3) Mattson's attorney was present for those hearings; (4) Mattson was not in court for those hearings; (5) the district court judge issued a warrant for Mattson's arrest based upon his failure to appear; and (6) in August 2017, Mattson turned himself in on the outstanding warrant. This court must "determine whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt." Moore, 846 N.W.2d at 88 (quotation omitted). Mattson argues that the circumstances do not eliminate the rational hypothesis that he did not know he had court on those days.
Mattson argues that a condition precedent of a criminal conviction for intentionally failing to appear at a court hearing is that the defendant had been given notice that he was required to appear on a specific date for a hearing. Minnesota Statutes state that "the actor must have knowledge of those facts which are necessary to make the actor's conduct criminal and which are set forth after the word 'intentionally.'" Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 9(3) (2016) (emphasis added). Notice of the specific court date is, therefore, an important factor in determining whether the defendant intentionally failed to appear. The state concedes that it did not introduce any evidence that notice was provided to Mattson regarding the April 18 or April 20 court dates. Because the record is silent as to notice, thestate asks this court to take judicial notice of Mattson's underlying criminal case files. We decline to take judicial notice. "Criminal cases are not normally the appropriate setting for judicial notice." In re Welfare of P.W.F., 625 N.W.2d 152, 154 (Minn. App. 2001) (quotation omitted). Moreover, this court has reasoned that judicial notice may not be "used as a substitute for adjudicating specific facts without a hearing." In re Block, 727 N.W.2d 166, 176 (Minn. App. 2007).
Because the state did not establish that Mattson received actual notice of the April 20 hearing date1 and no other evidence of Mattson's intent is contained in this record, we determine that the circumstances proved do not eliminate the rational hypothesis thatMattson did not know he was required to appear in court on April 20. Because the evidence in this record is insufficient to support Mattson's failure-to-appear conviction, we reverse.2
Mattson argues, in the alternative, that this court must remand for a new trial because the district court violated Mattson's constitutional rights by admitting evidence that Mattson declined to...
To continue reading
Request your trial