Added: Denorris Bisson - Date: 30.12.2021 02:14 - Views: 47789 - Clicks: 4373
State of Minnesota. Paul Nelson Coonrod. Filed November 5, Ramsey County District Court. File No. Paul, MN ; and. Paul, MN for respondent. Saint Paul teen chat rooms M. Spreigl evidence is not admissible unless the defense has received the pretrial notice required by Minn.
The requirement in the child-solicitation statute, Minn. Appellant Paul Coonrod appeals his conviction of soliciting to engage in sexual conduct, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of prior bad acts and in instructing the jury on the elements of the offense. He also argues that the evidence did not establish that his conduct violated the statute. Because we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of prior bad acts, we reverse and remand.
Appellant Paul Coonrod was charged with soliciting to engage in sexual conduct following an Internet child-exploitation sting operation that caught Coonrod communicating in a chat room with "Jaime14," a fictitious persona created by a U. After Coonrod had sent a of sexually explicit e-mail messages to "Jaime14," police arranged a face-to-face meeting, using an adult female undercover officer.
When Coonrod appeared at the arranged meeting site and approached the officer, he was arrested. Ron Miller, the U. Miller testified that he would typically enter an Internet chat room while assuming the identity of. Using the name "Jaime14," Miller participated in the chat session and soon received a "whisper" private communication from another chat room participant from a "Mnpablito," who turned out to be appellant Coonrod.
Miller testified that Coonrod raised the possibility of "Jaime14" visiting his apartment, where they could have sex. Miller, participating under the name "Jaime14," ended the chat room exchange when Coonrod suggested meeting. Miller testified the e-mail relationship lasted for a month and a half. During this relationship, Coonrod gave "Jaime14" his phonesent two more pictures of himself, and then set up a face-to-face meeting for August Although police posted the undercover officer at the arranged meeting site, Coonrod did not appear for the meeting.
Miller testified that Coonrod later explained that the meeting place was too close to a police station.
Coonrod and the undercover people set a second meeting for September It did take place. Following Miller's testimony, there was a discussion on possible Spreigl evidence held outside the presence of the jury. The evidence consisted of six or seven file folders found in a search of Coonrod's computer that were labeled with female names.
One of these folders was for J. The prosecutor moved to admit this evidence, while conceding that she had not provided a formal Spreigl notice to the defense.
The trial court ruled that without the required rule 7. The court, however, ruled that because there was no challenge to the police search of Coonrod's computer, the police officer could testify to what was found on it "whether or not it is relevant. Sills testified that she was 29 years old when this meeting occurred.
Schaub testified that the web indicated that Jackie was 15 years old. On cross-examination, Sergeant Schaub conceded that it would not be illegal generally for an adult to talk about sex with a year-old.
He testified that at their arranged meeting he would have driven away if he had seen a year-old girl. Coonrod testified, in fact, that he had arranged to meet one female at the Mall of America, but walked away when he saw from a distance that she appeared to be 13 or 14 years old.
The jury found Coonrod guilty as charged. The presumptive sentence was one year and one day stayed. The trial court departed dispositionally, executed the year-and-a-day sentence, and Coonrod went to prison. This appeal follows. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by allowing evidence of prior bad acts? Did the district court abuse its discretion in instructing the jury on the elements of the offense?
Is the evidence sufficient to support the conviction? Coonrod argues that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence that he had created files on his computer for juvenile females whom he had contacted. Coonrod argues that this was Spreigl evidence that should not have been admitted without pretrial notice, which the prosecutor admitted she did not provide. We agree. See Minn.$1000 For Every Kill!
OrfiN. The state must provide the defense with written pretrial notice of any evidence of other crimes or bad acts that it intends to present at trial with some narrow exceptions not applicable here. BolteN. The state provided no notice of any intent to present evidence of the computer file folders, or any other Spreigl evidence.
The state did disclose as a possible witness J. Thus, we cannot conclude that there was substantial compliance with the notice requirement. See BolteN. StateN. We do not understand that ruling. There was no issue to be decided at trial concerning police execution of the search warrant. It was not a necessary background to the discovery of the offense or to the offense itself.
Search warrants define the scope of the search. They do not define admissible evidence. The scope of admissibility is an entirely different issue and is decided at trial by the trial judge, not by law enforcement when executing a warrant. The erroneous admission of Spreigl evidence can be harmless error if, based on a review of the entire trial record, there is no reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence ificantly affected the verdict.CHILD YOU VS TEEN YOU -- Funniest Relatable Moments by 123 GO! GOLD
We cannot conclude harmless error here on these facts. The unnoticed Spreiglevidence suggested to the jury that Coonrod was a predatory person with a propensity to seek out teen-age girls. This court held in State v. SmithN. The same is true here. Therefore, we must reverse and remand for a new trial. Although the erroneous admission of the Spreigl evidence requires reversal, we also briefly address the other two issues that Coonrod raises. Elements of the offense.
Coonrod argues that the trial court abused its discretion in instructing the jury on the elements of the offense. State v. Gray, N. Jury instructions are viewed in their entirety to determine whether the law of the case is fairly and adequately explained. Flores, N. TibbettsN. Here, the challenged instruction did not invite the jury to find any element of the offense by reasonable inference.
The instruction did not present a conflict with the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard, as the instruction did in Tibbetts. Sufficiency of the evidence. DanielsN. If the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and the need for overcoming it by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably find the defendant guilty, this court will not reverse the conviction.
AltonN. Commanding, entreating, or attempting to persuade a specific personby telephone, by letter, or by computer or other electronic means. In construing statutes, this court looks first to the plain language of the statute. FurmanN. If the literal meaning of the statutory language is not conclusive, or if the language is ambiguous, the court looks to other indicia of legislative intent.
Saint Paul teen chat rooms Park Towers Ltd. County of HennepinN. Also, we agree with appellant that penal statutes must be strictly construed, and all reasonable doubt about their meaning must be resolved in favor of the defendant. WagnerN. But this court is not required to give a statute the narrowest possible interpretation.
Dayton Hudson Corp. JohnsonN. Opal Corp. American Family Ins. GroupN. But like those entities, she was not a flesh-and-blood human being either. In re RappN. The courts will not infer that the legislature intended an absurd result.Saint Paul teen chat rooms
email: [email protected] - phone:(775) 398-8698 x 8595
Free Minnesota Chat Rooms