This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A15-2036
State of Minnesota,
Respondent,
vs.
Andrew John Kramer,
Appellant.
Filed December 27, 2016
Affirmed
Connolly, Judge
Steele County District Court
File No. 74-CR-15-914
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Michael Everson, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul,
Minnesota; and
Daniel A. McIntosh, Steele County Attorney, Owatonna, Minnesota (for respondent)
Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Davi E. Axelson, Assistant Public
Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge; Bjorkman, Judge; and
Reilly, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
CONNOLLY, Judge
Appellant challenges his conviction of second-degree assault after a court trial,
arguing that the district court erred by using facts not in the record when it determined that
appellant knew that parks are closed in the middle of the night, by not ordering a Rule
20.01 competency evaluation of appellant done, and by not redacting, sua sponte, portions
of appellant’s statements to the police. Because we see no error, we affirm.
FACTS
On April 30, 2015, about 3:00 a.m., while J.W. and two others were asleep in J.W.’s
apartment, appellant Andrew John Kramer stood outside and yelled that J.W. should come
out. When J.W. responded by closing the window, appellant threw a rock through it. J.W.
and the two others then went outside, and appellant stabbed J.W. in the lower back with a
sharp knife. The police were called; J.W. was taken to the hospital, then air lifted to a
trauma unit.
The police went to appellant’s apartment and interviewed him. Appellant denied
stabbing J.W. or being at the scene. He was arrested and taken to jail, where he again
denied the stabbing, but his statement in jail contradicted the statement he had made to the
police in his apartment. Appellant’s statements to the police included racist remarks,
references to his previous encounters with the criminal justice system, and references to
being attacked in the park where he had left his hat and sunglasses. Police officers later
found appellant’s hat and sunglasses at the scene of the stabbing.
2
Appellant was charged with second-degree assault. At a contested omnibus hearing,
appellant’s attorney requested that appellant’s competency be evaluated under Minn. R.
Crim. P. 20.01. Appellant declined the evaluation and asked to proceed with his court
trial.1
During that trial, a witness and J.W. testified that appellant had stabbed J.W. The
district court heard unredacted versions of appellant’s statements to the police made in his
apartment and at jail. When the district court made the findings of guilty on the record, it
noted that appellant said at one point that he had been in the park, although appellant knew
the parks were closed at three in the morning, and that the contradictions within and
between appellant’s statements affected appellant’s credibility.
The district court found appellant guilty as charged and sentenced him to 27 months
in prison. He challenges his conviction, arguing that: (1) the district court’s statement that
appellant knew parks are closed in the middle of the night deprived appellant of a fair trial
before an impartial factfinder and violated the Code of Judicial Conduct; (2) the district
court erred by not having a Rule 20.01 competency evaluation of appellant done; and
(3) the district court erred by not redacting, sua sponte, portions of appellant’s statements
to the police as unfairly prejudicial.
DECISION
1. The District Court’s Statement
Appellant said to the officers who came to his apartment after the stabbing:
1
The trial was held before Judge Karen Duncan, referred to hereinafter as “she”; Judge
Gerald Wolf presided at the sentencing hearing.
3
I went to Kwik Trip down by Dartt’s [Park] to go buy a candy
bar [and] something to drink, minding my own business . . . I
get out of Kwik Trip, I cross the street go through the trail at
Dartt’s . . . and somebody came up from behind and started
beating me up. . . .
....
I lost it all [his hat and sunglasses] when they came at me.
They came at me from behind. They hit me in the head, the
back, the shoulder. I hit the ground and I was kinda down like
this a little bit . . . .
....
I didn’t even plan to go to a house. I actually was just going to
Kwik Trip for a nice walk to come home, spend some time with
my girlfriend upstairs, ‘cause she just . . . rented a movie, or
borrowed a movie from her mom.
....
I know . . . I got hit at least 3 times. I got hit once in the head
for sure, but they, they kind of did a few more hits in the back,
so I’m guessing maybe 2 or 3.
....
I went to the store to go get something to drink and a candy bar
to munch on and, I get beat up . . . on the way to [the store] . . .
I didn’t make it that far . . . .
At the jail, appellant said to the police officers:
I walked to Kwik Trip, and I went the long way, cause, like I
said, it’s nice out. I was just enjoying the weather, la da da, the
next thing you know I don’t even get to Kwik Trip. I get
jumped in Dartt’s.
....
I went through the Cedar, Elm Street area. I kind of zig zagged
back and forth. No, actually I went straight through Central
Park. I remember exactly what I did now.
....
Yeah, I walked straight through downtown. I remember now.
In announcing its finding of fact, the district court stated:
[Y]ou [appellant] had told the officers [who came to your
apartment] that you had gone to the Kwik-Trip by the park and
actually gone in and gotten something to drink and a candy bar.
That changed as you continued to talk to the statement that you
4
hadn’t actually made it into that Kwik-Trip. So that was kind
of one example of you . . . taking information that you knew,
and then trying to weave things into a story that would provide
you with a good alibi for this crime, such as being jumped in
the park. And the fact that you didn’t have any purchase from
Kwik-Trip, I believe, lead you to chang[e] your story from the
fact that you’d been inside Kwik-Trip to make your purchases
to [say that] you hadn’t made it that far at the time you got
jumped.
Your route for going through the park when you know
that the parks . . . are closed at that time of the morning [3:00]
also affected the credibility of your statements. The fact that
you would take the route to go through the park when your plan
was to go home and watch a movie with your girlfriend didn’t
seem to make a lot of sense. And also your report of the
jumping incident where at one point you’d indicated that you’d
been knocked down . . . but then it appeared that as you realized
that the officers were checking you for injuries and you didn’t
have injuries or dirt on you . . . you then changed the story and
said in fact you hadn’t been knocked to the ground . . . you’d
been moved forward . . . by being struck from behind.
(Emphasis added). Appellant argues that the italicized phrase both deprived him of a fair
trial and violated the Code of Judicial Conduct.
For this argument, appellant relies on State v. Dorsey, 701 N.W.2d 238 (Minn.
2005). But appellant’s reliance is misplaced. In Dorsey,
the [district court] judge, after openly questioning the veracity
of a factual assertion made by a key defense witness,
independently investigated that fact and then reported the
results of her investigation to counsel. . . .We conclude that [the
defendant] was deprived of the basic protection of an impartial
judge and finder of fact. . . .
Id. at 253 (quotation marks omitted). Here, the district court conducted no investigation
either as to when parks are open or as to appellant’s knowledge of when parks are open.
5
Appellant provides no other support for his view that the district court was not impartial,
and the record reveals none.
Appellant also argues that the district court was impartial because she “introduced
into the proceedings a material fact that was favorable to the state—and which the state
had not yet introduced.” Id. at 251 (emphasis added). But appellant does not explain why
either the closing time of a park where he claimed to have been at the time of the stabbing
and to have left the hat and glasses, or his knowledge of the park’s closing time, could have
been a material fact in the trial of appellant for a stabbing that did not occur in the park,
when his hat and glasses were found at the scene of the stabbing, and both a witness and
the victim, J.W., testified that appellant had done the stabbing.
The judge provided several reasons for her determination that appellant’s account
of having been attacked while walking through a park about 3:00 that morning was not
credible. The judge had heard statements from a witness and the victim that appellant had
been at the victim’s address and had stabbed the victim at the time appellant said he was in
the park and was attacked. The judge had also heard appellant’s statements to the police
in which he had given inconsistent accounts of where he had been and what had happened
at that time. Moreover, whether appellant knew or did not know the park was closed, and
whether the park was in fact closed or not closed, had no connection with the crime with
which appellant was charged or with the judge’s impartiality towards appellant.
Dorsey also fails to support appellant’s argument that the reference to the closing
time of Owatonna parks violated the Code of Judicial Conduct. In Dorsey, a judge who
had independently investigated a witness’s factual assertion and reported the results of the
6
investigation was found not to have violated the Code. Id. at 249. Here, there is no conduct
supporting a violation.
The district court’s statement neither deprived appellant of a fair trial nor violated
the Code.
2. Rule 20.01 Competency Evaluation
Appellant argues that the district court erred and ignored the plain language of Minn.
R. Crim P. 20.01 by disregarding appellant’s attorney’s request to have appellant’s
competency evaluated and granting appellant’s request to proceed to trial. Appellate courts
review competency determinations on undisputed facts “to determine whether the district
court gave proper weight” to the evidence suggesting incompetence in the record. State v.
Camacho, 561 N.W.2d 160, 174 (Minn. 1997).
At the omnibus hearing, appellant’s counsel noted that appellant had difficulty
understanding that hearsay could be used to find probable cause on a complaint and asked
that appellant’s competency be evaluated under Minn. R. Crim. P. 20.01 to see if he would
be able to assist in preparing his own defense. The district court asked appellant if he
wanted to have an evaluation. Appellant replied that he had been mistreated since the
beginning of the case and that he “had yet to see a reason why [he] should be sitting in jail
while the other person [i.e., the victim] walks away free due to the statements made” that,
in appellant’s view, were not reliable.
The district court asked appellant if he thought he could work with his attorney to
decide if he wanted to call witnesses at trial. Appellant answered, “I have no witnesses.
7
My statement is clear. I was alone” and objected that the victim, who appellant claimed
was admitting to a felony, was at home free of prosecution or charges.
The district court noted that appellant and his attorney were talking about two
different things: while the attorney was talking about a competency evaluation, appellant
was talking about the resolution of his case. The district court asked appellant, “And do
you feel you should be taking medications?” to which appellant answered, “I feel I should
be able to go home . . . [b]ecause hearsay is not enough to hold me when you got two
people with two different stories and one of them is giving three or four different stories to
several different people and it’s on record.”
The district court said it did not want to send appellant to St. Peter for an inpatient
evaluation if he did not feel it was necessary and told him that an evaluation would delay
his trial two or more months. Appellant responded, “Then my speedy trial would be thrown
out the window?” The district court told appellant that what he had been saying indicated
that he was “very aware of what the issues are” and that, if appellant was sufficiently aware
of the issues, they could have the trial as scheduled after the court had determined whether
there was probable cause. Appellant then spoke to his attorney, who told the district court,
“[I]n terms of the request for a Rule 20 [evaluation], it doesn’t sound to me from [appellant]
that he wants to get an evaluation[,] . . . and I just want to make it very clear that’s against
the advice of Counsel.”
Nothing in the omnibus-hearing transcript indicates that appellant was not
competent to understand the issues or to participate in his trial. He was very clear in stating
that there were no witnesses, in accord with his alibi that he was attacked while alone in a
8
park at the time the stabbing occurred. He reiterated his desire for a determination of
probable cause and for a speedy trial, and he consistently opposed his attorney’s view that
he should have a Rule 20 evaluation. A defendant is competent if he is able “to consult
with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding” and “has a rational as
well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.” Id. at 171 (quotations
omitted). Appellant met that standard. The district court did not err in granting his request
to move forward with the trial rather than delay it for a competency evaluation.
3. Unredacted Statements
Appellant’s statements to the police, made first in his apartment, then in jail,
contained racist remarks and references to his previous encounters with the criminal justice
system. He did not object to the introduction of the statements at trial, but now argues that
the district court should have redacted the racist remarks sua sponte and that the references
to appellant’s previous crimes were improperly admitted Spreigl evidence. Because no
objection was made at trial, appellant must show that the admission of the remarks and the
references to past involvement with police and the criminal justice system was error that
was plain, i.e., clear and obvious, and that affected substantial rights. See State v. Griller,
583 N.W.2d 736, 740 (Minn. 1998). If appellant makes this showing, the error will be
corrected only if it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial
proceedings.” See State v. Benton, 858 N.W.2d 535, 540 (Minn. 2015).
But appellant’s statements were not admitted as Spreigl evidence: they were
admitted to show that appellant had provided conflicting accounts of his activities at the
time the stabbing occurred. Appellant argues that evidence of “[his] past assaults, prior
9
use of drugs, and poor relationship with the police [was] irrelevant to the current charge.”
But the admission of that evidence did not violate Minn. R. Evid. 404 (a) (prohibiting
character evidence introduced for the purpose of proving conformity therewith on a
particular occasion), and none of that evidence had any relationship or similarity to the
crime with which appellant was charged. The evidence did show that appellant changed
his story while speaking to the police, that appellant had a motive to assault J.W., and that
appellant’s hat and gloves were not where he said he had lost them, i.e., in the park, but
rather outside J.W.’s residence, where the stabbing occurred and where appellant denied
having been.
Moreover, at a court trial, the risk that appellant’s references to previous altercations
with the police would have prejudiced the factfinder or affected the verdict was
significantly diminished. See State v. Burrell, 772 N.W.2d 459, 467 (Minn. 2009) (“[T]he
risk of unfair prejudice [from evidence of prior gang shootings] in the context of a bench
trial is . . . small.”) Appellant cites no statute or caselaw to support his implied view that
a district court judge has an obligation to redact from statements submitted at a court trial
all references to previous encounters with police or illegal activities.
Finally, appellant’s statements were not used for any improper purpose. Appellant
claims that they contained “strictly propensity evidence” and relies on State v. White, 295
Minn. 217, 226, 203 N.W.2d 852, 858-59 (1973) to argue that “introduction of [a]
defendant’s criminal record . . . by testimony not impeaching the credibility of defendant
as a witness . . . would [not] beyond a reasonable doubt constitute harmless error.”
(Emphasis added). This evidence was presented to impeach the credibility of a witness,
10
namely appellant: Both the internal inconsistencies in the statements themselves and the
fact that both the victim and a witness testified that appellant did the stabbing corroborated
the finding that appellant’s account of being attacked in the park when the stabbing
occurred was not credible. Moreover, the statements did not concern any prior stabbings
and therefore did not show any propensity for this particular crime.
The district court did not commit clear error by not sua sponte redacting appellant’s
statements prior to the court trial, and we see no error in not ordering a competency
evaluation or in observing that appellant knew when the parks were closed.
Affirmed.
11