Ravy Nov v. State of Minnesota
A16-0887
| Minn. Ct. App. | Feb 13, 2017Background
- In June 2013 Ravy Nov and C.C. broke up; Nov thereafter sent threatening texts and, on June 24, entered C.C.’s apartment to retrieve belongings.
- C.C. found her bedroom window open and room in disarray; Nov was present, angry, and told C.C. he had burned her citizenship papers and car title.
- Nov placed a utility knife on the table beside the bed, asked C.C. to sit next to him, removed C.C.’s phone SIM card, and refused to leave after she repeatedly told him to go.
- C.C. left, called police; officers arrested Nov in the apartment hallway after he answered C.C.’s phone.
- Nov was convicted at a bench trial of felony terroristic threats, misdemeanor domestic assault, and two counts of first-degree burglary (one count with a dangerous weapon); he sought postconviction relief claiming insufficient evidence.
- The postconviction court and this panel affirmed, concluding the record supports findings that Nov threatened a crime of violence with intent to terrorize and committed the predicate offenses in the dwelling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Nov) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nov threatened a crime of violence for terroristic-threats statute | State did not prove he threatened a specific crime of violence | His placement of a knife, threats, and behavior reasonably supported a threat to commit first-degree assault | Affirmed: judge found sufficient evidence that Nov threatened first-degree assault |
| Whether Nov had intent to terrorize (mens rea for terroristic threats) | Insufficient circumstantial evidence to show purpose to terrorize | Victim’s fear, his statements, weapon display, refusal to leave, and prior threats establish intent | Affirmed: circumstantial evidence forms a chain excluding other rational hypotheses |
| Whether burglary convictions require proof of predicate crime committed in dwelling | Terroristic-threats conviction lacking, so burglary must fail | Burglary requires commission of a crime while in building; terroristic threats were proven | Affirmed: because terroristic threats upheld, burglary convictions stand |
| Whether domestic-assault conviction lacked intent element | State failed to prove intent to cause fear of immediate bodily harm | Intent element largely overlaps with terroristic-threats intent; same facts support it | Affirmed: intent for domestic assault satisfied by same totality of facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Lussier v. State, 821 N.W.2d 581 (discussion of postconviction-review standard)
- Ortega, State v., 813 N.W.2d 86 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Jorgenson v. State, 758 N.W.2d 316 (jury must be instructed on/identify specific predicate crime of violence)
- Burrell v. State, 772 N.W.2d 459 (distinction between bench and jury trials re: instructional risks)
- Schweppe v. State, 237 N.W.2d 609 (purpose to terrorize and victim reaction as circumstantial evidence of intent)
- Silvernail v. State, 831 N.W.2d 594 (two-step circumstantial-evidence analysis)
- Murphy v. State, 545 N.W.2d 909 (definition of what constitutes a threat)