Gulbertson v. State, 843 N.W.2d 240

Gulbertson and Morrow had a volatile, years-long romantic relationship and lived together until May 2009.
Multiple witnesses described frequent fights; some testified Gulbertson threatened or harmed Morrow.
Morrow twice sought an order for protection (OFP) against Gulbertson; the court granted a 2009 OFP after an evidentiary hearing.
Gulbertson was convicted of first-degree murder while committing domestic abuse and with a past pattern of domestic abuse, based on evidence of prior abuse.
Gulbertson petitioned for postconviction relief challenging sufficiency of the past-pattern evidence, jury instructions, and admission of OFP-related evidence; the postconviction court denied relief, and on appeal the denial was affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of past pattern evidence	Gulbertson=false claims; argues only one act supports past pattern	State contends multiple incidents over years show a pattern	Evidence supported a past pattern; deference afforded to jury findings
Jury instructions on past pattern adequacy	Gulbertson contends instructions failed to define domestic abuse in the third element	State argues instructions adequate when viewed as a whole	No plain error; instructions fairly stated the law when read together
Admission of OFP evidence and confrontation clause	Admission violated Confrontation Clause; cross-examination opportunity lacking	Evidence was cumulative; officers corroborated much of same content	No reversible plain error; admission did not affect substantial rights; cumulative nature mitigated impact
Ineffective assistance (related to objections to OFP evidence)	Failure to object to OFP evidence could be ineffective assistance	No deficient performance shown; instructions/standard not violated	Insufficient to establish ineffective assistance under Strickland

State v. Welch, 675 N.W.2d 615 (Minn.2004) (sufficiency review for past pattern evidence; defer to jury)
State v. Sanchez-Diaz, 683 N.W.2d 824 (Minn.2004) (defines past pattern; more than a lone act required)
State v. Robinson, 539 N.W.2d 231 (Minn.1995) (past pattern suggests a regular way of acting)
State v. Asfeld, 662 N.W.2d 534 (Minn.2003) (statutory interpretation; plain meaning governs)
State v. Matthews, 779 N.W.2d 543 (Minn.2010) (jury instructions generally must be read as a whole)
State v. Flores, 418 N.W.2d 150 (Minn.1988) (instructions reviewed for fair and accurate statement of law)
State v. Clark, 739 N.W.2d 412 (Minn.2007) (credible weight/credibility determinations for domestic abuse evidence)
State v. Ramey, 721 N.W.2d 294 (Minn.2006) (plain-error standard for jury instructions)
State v. Kuhnau, 622 N.W.2d 552 (Minn.2001) (definitions and scope of domestic abuse elements)
State v. Hill, 801 N.W.2d 646 (Minn.2011) (plain-error step three; substantial rights)
State v. Griller, 583 N.W.2d 736 (Minn.1998) (plain-error framework; substantial rights focus)
Stewart v. Koenig, 783 N.W.2d 164 (Minn.2010) (jury instructions must fairly explain the law)
State v. Carridine, 812 N.W.2d 130 (Minn.2012) (instruction review standards)