State of Minnesota v. Cornelius Johnson, A15-1508

At ~3:30–4:00 a.m., Cornelius Johnson (subject to a DANCO) broke a side window of C.H.’s home after encountering another man there; C.H. called 911 and reported threats and that Johnson tried to get in.
Police arrived soon after; Officer Anderson interviewed an emotional C.H. ~20 minutes after the incident; her on-scene statements described threats, entry attempts, and fear.
At trial C.H. recanted parts of her earlier statements, testifying Johnson was not angry, did not try to enter, and that she had said things ‘‘out of anger.’’
The State introduced: (1) expert testimony from Scott Miller about typical victim behavior in domestic-violence relationships (without opining about this specific relationship); and (2) C.H.’s out-of-court statements to police under the excited-utterance exception.
The jury convicted Johnson of two counts of attempted first-degree burglary, one count of terroristic threats, and one DANCO violation; Johnson appealed evidentiary rulings admitting the expert testimony and the officer’s hearsay-recording.

Issue	State's Argument	Johnson's Argument	Held
Admissibility of expert testimony about victim behavior in domestic-violence relationships	Testimony is relevant and helpful to explain C.H.’s inconsistent statements and tendency of victims to recant or remain with abusers; expert limited to general behavior, not case-specific conclusions	State failed to show relationship met the expert’s definition of domestic violence, so testimony was not relevant	Admission affirmed: sufficient evidence (prior assault/DANCO, threats, coercion, jail calls) supported relevance and helpfulness; prejudicial effect did not outweigh probative value
Admissibility of C.H.’s statements to Officer Anderson under excited-utterance hearsay exception	Statements related to a startling event and were made shortly after while declarant remained upset; timely and trustworthy	Officer gave C.H. a moment to calm; thus she was not under the stress of excitement when speaking	Admission affirmed: short elapsed time, nature of event, officer’s observations showed C.H. remained under stress and lacked opportunity to fabricate

State v. Ritt, 599 N.W.2d 802 (Minn. 1999) (abuse-of-discretion standard for expert-admission rulings)
State v. Davis, 820 N.W.2d 525 (Minn. 2012) (prejudice requirement for reversal of evidentiary error)
State v. Grecinger, 569 N.W.2d 189 (Minn. 1997) (limits on expert testimony about battered-woman syndrome; may describe general characteristics/effects but not opine victim has syndrome)
State v. Vance, 685 N.W.2d 713 (Minn. App. 2004) (expert testimony can help explain recantation and why victim remains with abuser)
State v. Hanks, 817 N.W.2d 663 (Minn. 2012) (expert testimony inadmissible if state fails to show victim was in a domestic-violence relationship as defined)
State v. MacLennan, 702 N.W.2d 219 (Minn. 2005) (similar holding that lack of foundational facts precludes admission of domestic-violence expert testimony)
State v. Bauer, 598 N.W.2d 352 (Minn. 1999) (rationale for excited-utterance exception: excitement reduces likelihood of fabrication)
State v. Hogetvedt, 623 N.W.2d 909 (Minn. App. 2001) (factors for evaluating excited-utterance admissibility: elapsed time, event nature, declarant’s condition, motive to falsify)