State v. Villa
| Decision Date | 18 June 2018 |
| Docket Number | A17-1051 |
| Parties | State of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Kurt Lee Villa, 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This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn.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 (2016).
Affirmed
Cottonwood County District Court
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Edwin Stockmeyer, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and
Nick Anderson, Cottonwood County Attorney, Windom, Minnesota (for respondent)
Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Richard Schmitz, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Kirk, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and Bjorkman, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
A Cottonwood County jury found Kurt Lee Villa guilty of third-degree assault based on evidence that he punched another man in the face three times. We conclude that the prosecutor did not commit misconduct in closing argument and that Villa's right to a speedy trial was not violated. Therefore, we affirm.
Villa has an antagonistic relationship with J.S., who lives with Villa's former girlfriend, N.K., and with two children of Villa and N.K. On the evening of July 7, 2015, Villa encountered J.S. on a sidewalk in the city of Westbrook. The two men exchanged words before Villa threw J.S. to the ground and punched him in the face three times. J.S. suffered a broken orbital eye socket.
The state charged Villa with first-degree assault, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.221, subd. 1 (2014), and third-degree assault, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.223, subd. 1 (2014). In August 2015, Villa gave notice of his intent to assert the defense of self-defense. See Minn. R. Crim. P. 9.02, subd. 1(5)(a). Before trial, the state filed a motion in limine to admit evidence of two prior incidents in which Villa had threatened J.S. The state sought to introduce the two prior incidents to show the antagonistic relationship between Villa and J.S. and to show that Villa had a motive and an intent to cause harm to J.S. The district court agreed with the state's rationale and granted the motion.
The case was tried to a jury over two days in February 2017. J.S. testified that, on the evening of the incident, he was standing on the sidewalk outside the V.F.W. hall, smoking a cigarette. He had consumed one alcoholic drink. He saw Villa put some things in Villa's parked car and then walk toward him. J.S. and Villa had a conversation, which J.S. had difficulty remembering, except that he remembered telling Villa that Villa's children were happier living with J.S. J.S. testified that he and Villa then scuffled, that hehad his right arm around Villa's neck in a choke hold, and that he was lying on the ground while bleeding. He suffered a broken bone around his nose and eyes, and he still experiences double-vision.
J.S. also testified about two prior interactions with Villa. On September 29, 2014, Villa visited J.S.'s house and asked to talk to him. Villa accused J.S. of ruining his family and said that he would "mess [him] up." There was no physical altercation. Approximately a month later, on October 24, 2014, J.S. was standing outside the V.F.W. hall when Villa approached him. Villa yelled at J.S. and threatened to "mess [him] up." Again, there was no physical altercation.
Alan Wahl, the city's police chief, testified that he responded to a report of a fight outside the V.F.W. hall but that he arrived after both J.S. and Villa had left. Chief Wahl went to a nearby emergency room to speak with J.S. He observed that J.S.'s face was swollen and discolored, that he had a cut below his right eye, and that he was incoherent. Chief Wahl then went to a residence where Villa was visiting a friend. Villa did not appear to have any injuries. Villa agreed to accompany Chief Wahl to the police station to make a statement, which was recorded and played for the jury at trial. In his statement to Chief Wahl, Villa said that J.S. taunted him from across the street, saying "come and get me." Villa told Chief Wahl that he and J.S. argued for approximately five minutes before J.S. kicked Villa in the knee. Villa stated that he then took J.S. to the ground, struck him three times, and walked away. Villa did not tell Chief Wahl that he struck J.S. in self-defense.
In the defense case, Villa testified that he went to a grocery store that is near the V.F.W. hall. He saw J.S. standing outside the V.F.W. hall. Villa parked his car and walkedinto the grocery store while J.S. yelled at him. When Villa left the grocery store, J.S. continued yelling at him. Villa yelled back at him, and then J.S. approached him. J.S. taunted Villa by saying that Villa did not see his children anymore because J.S. was raising them. Villa told J.S. that he should either go back to his bar stool or fight. The two men argued for approximately five minutes before J.S. kicked Villa in his right knee and then squeezed Villa's throat. Villa used a wrestling move to take J.S. down to the sidewalk and then punched him three times in the face. Villa testified that he did not intend to hurt J.S. but intended only to cause J.S. to remove his hands from Villa's throat. Villa then returned to his car and drove to a friend's house, where they intended to prepare and eat a meal.
When cross-examining Villa, the prosecutor confirmed that Villa did not mention to Chief Wahl that he punched J.S. in an effort to cause J.S. to remove his hands from Villa's throat. During closing arguments, the prosecutor urged the jury to consider the fact that Villa did not tell Chief Wahl that he was defending himself when he punched J.S. The prosecutor also argued that the prior incidents between J.S. and Villa demonstrated that Villa was motivated to cause harm to J.S. and that his pre-existing state of mind is inconsistent with his theory of self-defense. The district court instructed the jury on the defense of self-defense, stating that the defense "is available only to those who act honestly and in good faith."
The jury found Villa not guilty of first-degree assault and guilty of third-degree assault. The district court imposed a sentence of 90 days in jail, with 60 days stayed. Villa appeals.
Villa argues that the prosecutor committed misconduct in two ways. First, Villa argues that the prosecutor committed misconduct by eliciting inadmissible evidence that Villa did not tell Chief Wahl that he punched J.S. in self-defense and by commenting on that evidence in her closing argument. Second, Villa argues that the prosecutor committed misconduct by urging the jury to consider the two prior incidents for a different purpose than that for which they were admitted.
Villa did not object to these alleged errors at trial. Accordingly, this court applies "a modified plain-error test." State v. Carridine, 812 N.W.2d 130, 146 (Minn. 2012). To prevail under the modified plain-error test, Villa must establish that there is an error and that the error is plain. State v. Ramey, 721 N.W.2d 294, 302 (Minn. 2006). An error is plain if it "contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct." Id. If Villa were to establish a plain error, the state would have the burden of showing that the error did not affect Villa's substantial rights, i.e., "that there is no reasonable likelihood that the absence of the misconduct in question would have had a significant effect on the verdict of the jury." Id. (quotations omitted).
The first part of Villa's argument is based on the prosecutor's cross-examination of Villa concerning the fact that he did not tell Chief Wahl that J.S. choked him and that he punched J.S. in self-defense. The prosecutor asked Villa, "You never went back and told Chief Wahl that you had remembered more additional information?" Villa responded,"No, I did not." In her closing argument, the prosecutor highlighted this evidence in the following way:
[T]his choking business. . . . It was not told to Al Wahl on the night of July 7th. It was not told to anybody in the meantime. Why did [he] not talk to the police? He said it wouldn't be beneficial to him. Again, I don't believe this shows good faith or force reasonably necessary.
Villa contends that the prosecutor should not have urged the jury to consider the fact that he did not tell Chief Wahl that he punched J.S. in self-defense. Villa relies exclusively on caselaw based on the right against self-incrimination after being arrested; he does not contend that the prosecutor's cross-examination and closing argument infringed his right against self-incrimination before being arrested. See State v. Borg, 806 N.W.2d 535, 541-43 (Minn. 2011).
Whether the state may introduce evidence concerning a defendant's post-arrest silence depends on whether the defendant previously received a Miranda warning. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602 (1966). If a defendant received a Miranda warning, the state may not introduce evidence that the defendant thereafter refrained from providing any particular information to investigators. Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 619, 96 S. Ct. 2240, 2245 (1976); State v. Dobbins, 725 N.W.2d 492, 509 (Minn. 2006); State v. Billups, 264 N.W.2d 137, 138-39 (Minn. 1978). But if a defendant had not received a Miranda warning, or if the record is silent as to whether the defendant had received a Miranda warning, then the state is not prohibited from introducing evidence that the defendant refrained from providing information to investigators. Fletcher v. Weir, 455U.S. 603, 603-07, 102 S. Ct. 1309, 1310-12 (1982); State v. Morrison, 351 N.W.2d 359, 361-62 (Minn. 1984).
In this case, there is nothing in the trial record as to whether Villa received a Miranda warning before he gave his statement to Chief Wahl or at any other time before trial. In the absence of such evidence, we must assume that the state was not restrained from questioning...
To continue reading
Request your trial