State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Chad Alan Blood Milhausen, Jr., Appellant, a251217

Background

Milhausen and A.O. were in an on-and-off relationship for about six years and consensually created explicit photos and videos during the relationship. 1
After A.O. moved out and asked Milhausen to delete the materials, explicit photos and videos of her were posted on FetLife between June and October 2023. 2
A.O. identified the FetLife account as Milhausen's, never gave him permission to post the images, and felt embarrassed and concerned about community and family exposure. 3
The state charged Milhausen with nine counts of nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images, later dismissed four counts, and the jury convicted him of the remaining five counts. 4
The district court convicted Milhausen on counts one and two only, but the warrant of commitment mistakenly listed convictions on all five counts. 5

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Unredacted warrant violated pretrial order 6	Milhausen says the state introduced inadmissible sentencing details.	State concedes the warrant was not properly redacted.	Misconduct occurred, but it was not independently prejudicial. 7
Closing argument misstated testimony 8	Milhausen says the prosecutor intentionally misstated the roommate's testimony.	State says the remark was imprecise, not intentional.	No misconduct; the remark was a reasonable inference. 9
Closing argument inflamed jury 10	Milhausen says remarks about a young mother and paid pornography inflamed prejudice.	State says the remarks were tied to credibility and consent.	No misconduct; remarks were permissible in context. 11
Closing argument referenced facts outside evidence 12	Milhausen says the prosecutor relied on juror voir dire answers.	State argues the comments were common-sense argument.	Plain error and misconduct occurred. 13
Cumulative prosecutorial misconduct 14	Milhausen says the combined misconduct denied him a fair trial.	State says the errors were isolated, mitigated, and harmless.	No new trial; cumulative effect was not prejudicial enough. 15
Incorrect warrant of commitment 16	Milhausen says the warrant wrongly lists five convictions.	State agrees the warrant should be corrected.	Reversed and remanded to correct the warrant to counts one and two only. 17

Key Cases Cited

State v. Duol, 25 N.W.3d 135 (Minn. 2025) (due process includes the right to a fair trial 18)
State v. Ramey, 721 N.W.2d 294 (Minn. 2006) (prosecutors must ensure a fair trial; plain-error misconduct standard 19)
State v. Wren, 738 N.W.2d 378 (Minn. 2007) (objected-to misconduct is reviewed for harmless error; improper voir dire references can be misconduct 20)
State v. Portillo, 998 N.W.2d 242 (Minn. 2023) (unobjected-to misconduct is reviewed under the modified plain-error test 21)
State v. Ray, 659 N.W.2d 736 (Minn. 2003) (introducing evidence previously ruled inadmissible is misconduct 22)
State v. Smith, 541 N.W.2d 584 (Minn. 1996) (closing arguments may discuss legitimate inferences from the evidence 23)
State v. Smith, 876 N.W.2d 310 (Minn. 2016) (closing argument is evaluated as a whole, not by isolated phrases 24)
State v. Peltier, 874 N.W.2d 792 (Minn. 2016) (prosecutor may not intentionally misstate evidence; improper remarks may be cured by context 25)
State v. Young, 710 N.W.2d 272 (Minn. 2006) (misstating testimony can be misconduct when it underpins an implausible argument 26)
State v. Barthman, 917 N.W.2d 119 (Minn. App. 2018) (slight misstatements of testimony are not necessarily intentional misleadings 27)
State v. Duncan, 608 N.W.2d 551 (Minn. App. 2000) (prosecutor must not inflame the jury's passions or prejudices 28)
State v. Morton, 701 N.W.2d 225 (Minn. 2005) (courts scrutinize inflammatory statements especially when credibility is central 29)
State v. Bauer, 776 N.W.2d 462 (Minn. App. 2009) (using voir dire answers to assess credibility is improper 30)
State v. Fraga, 898 N.W.2d 263 (Minn. 2017) (cumulative error considers egregiousness, strength of the case, and mitigation 31)
State v. Taylor, 650 N.W.2d 190 (Minn. 2022) (jury instructions can mitigate prosecutorial misstatements 32)
Spann v. State, 740 N.W.2d 570 (Minn. 2007) (official judgment is generally conclusive on whether an offense was formally adjudicated 33)
State v. Statloch, 643 N.W.2d 329 (Minn. App. 2002) (oral pronouncement controls when it conflicts with the warrant of commitment 34)