State v. Serrano-Santana

State of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Melvin Ronaldo Serrano-Santana, Appellant.

A20-1021

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS

May 17, 2021

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

Affirmed

Larkin, Judge

Ramsey County District Court

File No. 62-CR-19-6526

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

John J. Choi, Ramsey County Attorney, Jeffrey A. Wald, Assistant County Attorney, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Jennifer Workman Jesness, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Larkin, Presiding Judge; Cochran, Judge; and Cleary, Judge.^*

NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION

LARKIN, Judge

Appellant challenges his convictions for first-degree burglary, threats of violence, and domestic assault by strangulation, arguing that he is entitled to a new trial because the district court abused its discretion by admitting relationship evidence and by failing to sua sponte provide a cautionary instruction regarding the proper use of that evidence. Appellant also argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction of domestic assault by strangulation as a matter of law. We affirm.

FACTS

Respondent State of Minnesota charged appellant Melvin Serrano-Santana with first-degree burglary, threats of violence, domestic assault by strangulation, and violation of a domestic-abuse-no-contact order (DANCO) based on conduct that occurred on August 28, 2019. At trial, the state presented evidence that Serrano-Santana and C.R. began a romantic relationship in 2017. C.R. testified that Serrano-Santana was a "good man" at the beginning of their relationship, but "once he started feeling more comfortable with [her], he started maltreating [her]." According to C.R., Serrano-Santana refused to allow her to speak with her friends, broke her phone, and monitored her whereabouts with a tracking application on her phone. C.R. also claimed that Serrano-Santana once held a knife to her neck and prevented her from going to work for two days.

In February 2019, C.R. obtained a DANCO against Serrano-Santana. On May 15, 2019, C.R. came home from work to find Serrano-Santana sleeping in her bed. When C.R. told him that she was going to call the police, Serrano-Santana took her phone away, andthe two "struggled." C.R. testified that she was eventually able to call the police, and when they arrived, Serrano-Santana was "grabbing [her] by the neck." The state then introduced two photographs of C.R. from the May 15 incident, which showed bruising on C.R.'s cheek and beneath her shoulder.

C.R. testified that, after she ended their relationship, she moved to get away from Serrano-Santana because he repeatedly entered her residence without her permission. According to C.R., Serrano-Santana came to her residence on August 27, 2019, and attempted to convince her to get back together with him. C.R. claimed that, during that encounter, Serrano-Santana grabbed her by the neck.

The next day, C.R. arrived home from work at about 5:00 p.m. When she arrived home, C.R.'s daughter was asleep in the apartment, and C.R. discovered that the front door was unlocked. And when C.R. entered the apartment, Serrano-Santana was coming out. C.R. testified that she asked Serrano-Santana what he was doing there, and he told her that he "was just there to see what he would find" and showed her that he had taken her bankcard. C.R. testified that she told Serrano-Santana that she was going to call the police and he then grabbed her by the neck "like he always does." C.R. claimed that Serrano-Santana put her against the wall, covered her mouth, and squeezed her neck. C.R. explained that, although she was able to breathe through her mouth, she was afraid and thought Serrano-Santana was going to kill her. According to C.R., Serrano-Santana then left with her bankcard.

C.R. called 911. An officer responded to the call and described C.R. as "very distraught, very confused, [and] very scared." C.R. informed the officers that her ex-boyfriend got inside her apartment, grabbed her by the neck, and showed her that he had taken her bankcard. C.R. also told the officers that her neck was sore and that she could not swallow. Although one of the officers testified that C.R. was embarrassed because she had lost control of her bladder when Serrano-Santana grabbed her neck, C.R. testified that she did not remember the officers asking her about that.

Officers observed a fresh scratch on C.R.'s neck, just below her chin. Officers also observed that one of the screens on a window to C.R.'s ground-floor apartment had been cut and that a window on another side of the apartment would allow entrance into the apartment. Photographs of the windows and of C.R.'s neck were taken by the officers and admitted into evidence.

Officers searched the area for Serrano-Santana, but they were unable to locate him. Later that evening, Serrano-Santana repeatedly called and texted C.R., both threatening her and trying to reconcile their romantic relationship. Serrano-Santana continued communicating with C.R. the next day and eventually came to C.R.'s apartment, where he was arrested.

C.R. gave a statement to Sergeant Michelle Giampolo on August 30, 2019. C.R. described the pressure that resulted when Serrano-Santana squeezed her neck on August 28 as a six out of ten. C.R. also told Sergeant Giampolo that "as a result of being strangled" by Serrano-Santana on August 28, she "urinated on herself," "saw stars," and that "her vision started to go black." According to Sergeant Giampolo, bladder control is a symptom of being strangled. Sergeant Giampolo testified that C.R. said that as a result of beingstrangled by Serrano-Santana, her "voice was raspy and sore and it hurt when she swallowed."

The jury found Serrano-Santana guilty as charged. The district court entered judgments of conviction for first-degree burglary, threats of violence, and domestic assault by strangulation and sentenced him to serve 60 months in prison for those crimes. Serrano-Santana appeals.

DECISION

I.

Serrano-Santana contends that the district court abused its discretion by admitting, under Minn. Stat. § 634.20 (2020), evidence regarding his relationship with C.R. and that the court plainly erred by failing to instruct the jury, sua sponte, regarding the proper use of that evidence. We address each argument in turn.

Admission of Relationship Evidence

Minn. Stat. § 634.20 is a rule of evidence that allows the admission of "relationship" evidence in certain circumstances. State v. Fraga, 864 N.W.2d 615, 627 (Minn. 2015). The statute provides that "[e]vidence of domestic conduct by the accused against the victim of domestic conduct, or against other family or household members, is admissible unless the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." Minn. Stat. § 634.20. "Domestic conduct" includes, among other things, "evidence of domestic abuse." Id. "Domestic abuse" includes "physical harm, bodily injury, or assault," if committed against a family or household member. Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 2(a)(1) (2020); see also Minn. Stat. § 634.20 (incorporating that definition of domestic abuse).

We review the district court's decision to admit evidence under Minn. Stat. § 634.20 for an abuse of discretion. State v. Lindsey, 755 N.W.2d 752, 755 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied (Minn. Oct. 29, 2008). The appellant has the burden to establish that the district court abused its discretion and that appellant was prejudiced. Id.

Prior to trial, the state filed notice of intent to introduce relationship evidence under Minn. Stat. § 634.20. Later, the state moved in limine to introduce evidence regarding three prior domestic-related incidents involving Serrano-Santana and C.R. The district court, over Serrano-Santana's objection, granted the state's request to admit evidence regarding incidents that had occurred in February and May 2019, but the court ruled that evidence regarding the third incident would not be allowed. Ultimately, the state did not present evidence regarding the February 2019 incident at trial.

Serrano-Santana argues that evidence regarding the May 15, 2019 incident had limited probative value and was outweighed by its prejudicial effect "because it made [him] appear to have a propensity for violence towards [C.R.]." Serrano-Santana cites State v. Hormann as support, a case in which the defendant was charged with stalking and installing a tracking device on his wife's car without permission. 805 N.W.2d 883, 886 (Minn. App. 2011), review denied (Minn. Jan. 17, 2012). At trial, the Hormann complainant testified about the defendant's conduct during their 20-year marriage, which consisted of domestic violence and controlling and destructive behavior. Id. at 886-87. On appeal, this court stated that the complainant's "general testimony about the marriage was only marginally relevant to establish why she believed her car was being tracked" by the defendant and "had little apparent value other than to establish [the defendant's] bad character." Id. at891. This court concluded that the "limited probative value of the evidence was outweighed by the danger of prejudice and the district court abused its discretion by admitting it." Id.

Serrano-Santana's reliance on Hormann is unavailing because, unlike the defendant in Hormann, Serrano-Santana was charged with domestic-assault-related offenses. And in this case, the relationship evidence helped the jury to assess C.R.'s credibility. As Serrano-Santana notes in his brief to this court, "[t]his case hinged on [C.R.'s] credibility." Relationship evidence has "significant probative value in assisting the jury to judge witness credibility." Lindsey, 755 N.W.2d at 757.

Moreover, "unfair prejudice is not merely damaging evidence, even severely damaging evidence; rather, unfair prejudice is evidence that persuades by...