State v. Modtland

Citation970 N.W.2d 711
Decision Date14 February 2022
Docket NumberA21-0146
Parties STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Patrick James MODTLAND, Appellant.
CourtCourt of Appeals of Minnesota

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Jeffrey R. Edblad, Isanti County Attorney, Joel Whitlock, Assistant County Attorney, Cambridge, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Leah C. Graf, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Bratvold, Presiding Judge; Reyes, Judge; and Frisch, Judge.

REYES, Judge

Following a jury trial, the district court convicted appellant of third-degree possession of a controlled substance and giving false information to police. Appellant argues that his convictions must be reversed and that we must remand for a new trial because the district court (1) violated his right to confrontation by denying his request to require witnesses to remove their face masks while testifying; (2) violated his right to a public trial by closing the courtroom to the public but allowing the public to watch live video of the trial proceedings from a nearby open courtroom; and (3) committed plain error by admitting hearsay statements of a nontestifying police officer regarding the location of the methamphetamine appellant was convicted of possessing. Appellant also submitted a pro se supplemental brief asserting various other claims. We affirm.

FACTS

A police deputy and a sergeant were refueling their police vehicle at a gas station when the deputy noticed appellant Patrick James Modtland walking by and avoiding eye contact with the officers. Appellant had stopped at the gas station in a Chrysler 300 accompanied by S.N., who drove a separate vehicle. The deputy found appellant's behavior suspicious, and the sergeant informed the deputy that the Chrysler 300 was registered to a revoked driver. Appellant and S.N. left the gas station in their separate vehicles. The deputy followed the vehicles and, after viewing a photograph of the vehicle's registered owner, confirmed that appellant was not the registered owner of the Chrysler 300.

As appellant slowed and parked outside of an apartment complex, the deputy noticed that the vehicle's brake lights did not function and initiated a traffic stop as appellant exited the vehicle. When the deputy asked for identification, appellant said he had none with him but gave his name as "Patrick John Johnson" and his birth date as July 11, 1974. The deputy attempted to verify appellant's identity but could not. The deputy asked appellant several questions in an attempt to identify him and spoke with S.N., who had parked nearby. S.N. told the deputy that appellant's name was "Patrick" and that she owned the Chrysler 300.

The deputy arrested appellant based on the deputy's belief that appellant provided a false name. While searching appellant incident to that arrest, the deputy found a methamphetamine pipe in the back pocket of appellant's pants. A field test on the pipe indicated the presence of methamphetamine. A K-9 dog sniffed the Chrysler 300 and alerted to the presence of drugs. The officers searched the vehicle. The sergeant found a container behind the driver's seat that contained a bag of a crystalline substance. A field test identified the substance as methamphetamine. Testing by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) confirmed the substance as methamphetamine weighing approximately 23 grams. Officers later discovered that appellant's real name was Patrick James Modtland.

Respondent State of Minnesota charged appellant with first- and second-degree sale of a controlled substance, third- and fifth-degree possession of a controlled substance, providing false information to police, and driving without proof of insurance. Appellant had a jury trial in September 2020. The district court implemented coronavirus disease (COVID-19)-related safety procedures during trial, including configuring the courtroom to maintain a six-foot distance between everyone in the courtroom and requiring everyone, including testifying witnesses, to wear masks. It also limited courtroom access to trial participants and court staff but provided live video of the proceedings in a nearby courtroom open to the public.

During trial, the state played the deputy's body-worn camera (bodycam) video for the jury. The deputy testified that he had not personally located any drugs in the vehicle and that the sergeant found the methamphetamine behind the driver's seat. Appellant did not object to that testimony. The sergeant did not testify. A BCA forensic scientist who prepared the report identifying the substance taken from the Chrysler 300 as 23 grams of methamphetamine testified. And S.N. testified that she had never driven the Chrysler 300, that nothing in it was hers, and that she had no knowledge of the methamphetamine until officers found it during appellant's arrest.

The district court granted appellant's motion for a directed verdict on the driving-without-proof-of-insurance charge. After trial, the jury found appellant not guilty of first-degree sale of a controlled substance but found him guilty of second-degree sale of a controlled substance, third- and fifth-degree possession of a controlled substance, and giving a false name to police. The district court granted appellant's motion for judgment of acquittal on the second-degree-sale charge after concluding that the state presented insufficient evidence. The district court convicted appellant of third-degree possession of a controlled substance in violation of Minn. Stat. § 152.023, subd. 2(a)(1) (2018), with a sentence of 49 months in prison, and convicted him of giving a false name to police in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.506, subd. 1 (2018), with a concurrent 90-day sentence. This appeal follows.

ISSUES

I. Did the district court violate appellant's right to confrontation by denying his request to require witnesses to remove their face masks while testifying?

II. Did the district court violate appellant's right to a public trial by limiting courtroom access to trial participants and allowing the public to watch the trial proceedings via live video in a nearby open courtroom?

III. Did the district court plainly err by admitting statements of a nontestifying police officer regarding the location of the methamphetamine?

IV. Do any of appellant's claims in his pro se brief merit relief?

ANALYSIS
I. Based on the circumstances of appellant's trial, the district court did not violate appellant's right to confrontation by requiring testifying witnesses to wear face masks to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

Appellant first argues that the district court violated his right to confrontation by denying appellant's request to require witnesses to remove their face masks while testifying. We disagree.

A criminal defendant has the right under the United States and Minnesota Constitutions to confront the witnesses against him. U.S. Const. amend. VI ; Minn. Const. art. I, § 6 ; see also State v. Hull , 788 N.W.2d 91, 100 (Minn. 2010) (stating that appellate courts apply same analysis to state and federal confrontation clauses). The Confrontation Clause guarantees a criminal defendant the right to a face-to-face meeting with witnesses appearing before the trier of fact. Coy v. Iowa , 487 U.S. 1012, 1016, 108 S.Ct. 2798, 101 L.Ed.2d 857 (1988). But this right is not absolute: it may be satisfied without a full physical, face-to-face confrontation at trial if (1) the interference with confrontation is necessary to further an important public policy and (2) the reliability of the testimony is otherwise assured. Maryland v. Craig , 497 U.S. 836, 850, 110 S.Ct. 3157, 111 L.Ed.2d 666 (1990) ; see also State v. Tate , 969 N.W.2d 378, 720 (Minn. App. 2022). Whether a defendant's right to confrontation is violated is a question of law that we review de novo. State v. Caulfield , 722 N.W.2d 304, 308 (Minn. 2006). Appellant challenges both the necessity and reliability prongs. We address each in turn.

A. Necessity

To satisfy this prong of the Craig analysis, the district court must support its determination that an interference with physical confrontation is necessary to further an important public policy with case-specific findings. Craig , 497 U.S. at 850, 855, 110 S.Ct. 3157 ; see also Tate , at 722–23. The district court is not, however, required to explore less-restrictive alternatives before determining that a certain interference is necessary. Craig , 497 U.S. at 859-60, 110 S.Ct. 3157.

Appellant's trial occurred against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic in Minnesota. In March 2020, the governor declared a peacetime emergency in response to the pandemic. Emerg. Exec. Ord. No. 20-01, Declaring a Peacetime Emergency & Coordinating Minnesota's Strategy to Protect Minnesotans from COVID-19 (Mar. 13, 2020). Shortly after, the Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court suspended all new jury trials and restricted in-person courtroom proceedings. Order Continuing Operations of the Courts of the State of Minnesota Under a Statewide Peacetime Declaration of Emergency , No. ADM20-8001 (Minn. Mar. 20, 2020). The Minnesota Judicial Council later approved a pilot program beginning in June 2020, which gradually restarted jury trials under new health and safety guidelines and instructed district courts to follow the Minnesota Judicial Branch's COVID-19 Preparedness Plan. See Order Governing the Continuing Operations of the Minnesota Judicial Branch Under Emergency Executive Order 20-48 , No. ADM20-8001 (Minn. May 1, 2020); Order Governing the Continuing Operations of the Minnesota Judicial Branch Under Emergency Executive Order Nos. 20-53, 20-56 , No. ADM20-8001 (Minn. May 15, 2020). That plan generally required everyone to wear masks and maintain social distance while in judicial facilities. Minnesota Judicial Branch COVID-19 Preparedness Plan , Minn. Jud. Council (Minn. May 15, 2020).

Consistent with these orders, at the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • State v. Coons
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • June 21, 2023
    ...... (citing Rogers , at ¶ 19). Although we require. findings sufficient to satisfy Waller , we. . 8 . . do not necessarily require that the court expressly. references that or any other case so long as the findings. themselves are sufficient. See State v. Modtland" ,. 970 N.W.2d 711, 721-723 (Minn.Ct.App. 2022). Here, the court. did not refer to Waller or generally to the. threshold requirements before closing a trial proceeding but. did make some findings that we now consider under the. Waller framework. . .          1. . .    \xC2"......
  • State v. Brimmer
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • December 22, 2022
    ...orders is germane to our assessment of whether it considered reasonable and less restrictive alternatives. Compare State v. Modtland, 970 N.W.2d 711, 722-23 (Minn.Ct.App. 2022) (holding district court's adherence to Minnesota Judicial Branch's Preparedness Plan by configuring courtroom to c......
  • Johnson v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • January 24, 2023
    ...rights were not violated when courts allowed or required the use of facial-coverings due to COVID-19. See e.g. , State v. Modtland , 970 N.W.2d 711, 718-19 (Minn. Ct. App. 2022) ; People v. Lopez , 75 Cal. App. 5th 227, 233, 290 Cal.Rptr.3d 383 (2022) ; United States v. Tagliaferro , 531 F.......
  • Johnson v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • January 24, 2023
    ......Jurisdictions that. have addressed similarly raised confrontation claims have. determined that defendants' confrontation rights were not. violated when courts allowed or required the use of. facial-coverings due to COVID-19. See e.g., State v. Modtland, 970 N.W.2d 711, 718-19 (Minn.Ct.App. 2022);. People v. Lopez, 75 Cal.App. 5th 227, 233. (2022); United States v. Tagliaferro, 531 F.Supp.3d. 844 (S.D.N.Y. 2021); State v. Jesenya O., 493 P.3d. 418, 432 (N.M. Ct. App. 2021). . .           ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT