State v. Reed, A13-1027
| Decision Date | 28 July 2014 |
| Docket Number | A13-1027 |
| Parties | State of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Randy Donald Reed, 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This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn.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 (2012).
Affirmed
Morrison County District Court
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and
Brian J. Middendorf, Morrison County Attorney, Todd L. Kosovich, Amber M. Kusler, Assistant County Attorneys, Little Falls, Minnesota (for respondent)
Mark D. Kelly, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Reyes, Presiding Judge; Reilly, Judge; and Stoneburner, Judge.*
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
On appeal of his conviction of first-degree arson under Minn. Stat. § 609.561, subd. 1 (2010), appellant argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. We affirm.
On August 24, 2010, police and firefighters were called to a house fire at appellant Randy Donald Reed's home near Pierz, Minnesota, which appeared to have originated at the bottom of the house's basement stairs. Firefighters found a butane torch near the stairs with the valve turned on and noticed windows lying on the ground outside the house alongside a framed picture, as well as empty picture frames hanging on a wall inside. While police and firefighters were at the house, Reed and his girlfriend, B.S., pulled up to the house. Reed calmly asked a deputy sheriff what was going on. Reed stated that he had left a torch and a gas can, which contained about a gallon of gas, in the basement at the bottom of the stairs near the dryer.
Finding the situation suspicious, police called the state fire marshal to investigate. The fire marshal's investigation revealed (1) traces of gasoline in the basement but no sign of a gas can; (2) several points of origin of the fire; (3) that items had been removed from the home shortly before the fire, including pictures and recreational equipment; and (4) that Reed and B.S. had suffered financial hardship and the house was in foreclosure. Based on these findings, the fire marshal concluded that the fire was a result of arson.Reed was charged with first-degree arson of a dwelling under Minn. Stat. § 609.561, subd. 1.
At Reed's jury trial, the state presented testimony from the fire marshal, firefighters, police officers, insurance representatives, and a fire investigator hired by Reed's insurance company. Various firefighters testified to the following facts: a car belonging to Reed and B.S. backed up to the house shortly before the fire with its trunk open and smoke was visible; a framed photo of a deceased family member was found on the grass outside the house, near where the car had been parked, and was not burned or dirty; the doors to the house were locked when they responded to the fire; a butane torch leaking gas was found at the bottom of the stairs; there were windows in the grass 20 feet from the house that looked like they had been removed from their framing; there were empty picture frames hanging in the hallway of the house; and the attic access hatch was ajar. The fire marshal also testified that he found a partially unrolled roll of toilet paper in a bathroom sink with the end draped over a hair dryer that had been turned off and that it looked like it was staged to be a "trailer" from an ignition source. Similarly, a fire investigator hired by Reed's insurance testified that there was toilet paper extending across the kitchen floor, leading to the dishwasher.
Reed's insurance agent testified that Reed had called the day before the fire to confirm that his policy was paid and current on both his home and auto insurance and that Reed was the only insured on the policy. An investigator for Reed's insurance company testified that when she interviewed Reed, he stated that he had left a gas can in the basement that had a gallon of gas in it, that he was the last person to leave the basement,and that he arrived at his parents' house 15 minutes after B.S. Reed also told his agent that he had recently removed a pool table and hockey table for consignment and had taken drawings and pictures out of the house to make copies of them.
A recorded statement from Reed, taken a few days after the fire, was played for the jury. In the recording, Reed explained that he had just moved back into the house, where B.S. and her children were residing, a few days before the fire. He also admitted that he and B.S. were unemployed, had not made a house payment since March of 2010, owed $127,000 on the house, and had it insured for about $190,000. Reed stated that he and B.S. had left the house on the day of the fire between 1:00 and 1:30 p.m. to go to his parents' house to do farm chores and pick up B.S.'s daughter, and they arrived back home at about 3:45 p.m.
The fire marshal testified that he determined during his investigation that there was no gas can on the stairs as Reed had claimed, as indicated by the fact that the back riser on the left-hand side of the stairs was burned away, but the steps were intact and there were no melted "pancake" remains of the can. The fire marshal also testified that there were multiple points of origin of the fire, including at the bottom of the stairs, a wooden chair, an automobile chair, and a clothes basket, based on the extent of the damage and the burn patterns, which showed no connection between the fires. And he determined that the fire was not spread from fire or heat radiating from above based on the lack of damage done to the top part of the automobile chair. The fire marshal also explained that he could smell gasoline in the basement and an ignitable liquid was detected near the areas of the fire's origins, as determined by a hand-held tester.Evidence sent for forensic analysis tested positive for gasoline. Based on the physical evidence, the financial situation of the homeowners, and having ruled out other possible causes, the fire marshal concluded that the fire was a result of arson.
The expert fire investigator hired by Reed's insurance company also testified that there were multiple points of origin of the fire, that the fire pattern was inconsistent with Reed's story that he had left a gas can in the basement, and that the localized burn pattern on the wooden chair indicated that the fire was not started from above. He explained that there was a "trailer" of clothing objects leading to the clothes basket that was meant to spread the fire. He determined that the fire near the stairs was localized and caused by gasoline on the floor and fueled by the contents of the shelf near the stairs, accounting for the charring on the ceiling rafters. The fire investigator noted that the damage to the automobile chair was localized and that the back of the chair and items on top of the chair were not burned, signifying that the fire was isolated and not influenced by other fire in the room. Like the fire marshal, the fire investigator concluded that the fire was intentionally set, testifying that the nature of the fire was typical of fraud fires because the perpetrator tried to create the appearance of an accidental fire, as illustrated by the trailers of toilet paper on the first floor of the house.
Reed presented expert testimony in his defense that the fire was accidental. The defense expert testified that gas vapor had leaked out of the nozzle of the gas can, which was sitting on the steps, and was ignited by the nearby operating dryer, resulting in a fire that trailed back to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial