State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Blake Palmer, A16-235

Background

Defendant Jeffrey Palmer asked a motel guest (S.O.) to help sell firearms; he showed her two BB guns and a .380 handgun, cocked the .380, and a live round fell onto a bed. S.O. became frightened and left.
After receiving threatening/sexual texts from Palmer, S.O. involved Investigator Paul Orvis; at Orvis’s request she arranged a controlled contact, photographed the .380, recorded a phone call with Palmer, and retrieved the gun from him.
S.O. gave the .380 to Investigator Orvis; Orvis then located and arrested Palmer in a van and recovered S.O.’s phone and the two BB guns from the van.
Palmer was tried and convicted of being an ineligible person in possession of a firearm based on possession of the .380-caliber handgun.
Pretrial and trial disputes centered on admission of “bad-act” evidence: the two BB guns found in the van, recorded statements (911 call and phone call), and testimony referencing the gun and van as stolen or other alleged illegal activity.
The district court admitted the BB-gun evidence (with cautionary instructions) and declined to grant a mistrial after several references to other misconduct; the court also gave curative and final jury instructions limiting use of other-acts evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of BB guns found in the van	BB-gun evidence corroborates S.O.’s account and is relevant to possession and credibility	BB guns were irrelevant to the charged firearm and unfairly prejudiced the jury	Admissible: corroborative of S.O.’s testimony and probative value outweighed prejudice; curative instruction given
Admission of recorded 911 call and phone call	911 and recorded call explained S.O.’s motive and showed Palmer’s statements about the gun	Calls introduced prejudicial references to theft and other illegal acts	Admissible: 911 call and recorded phone call were relevant to motive and to Palmer’s account of the gun; cautionary instruction mitigated prejudice
References at trial that gun/van were stolen and other alleged illegal activity	State points to inadvertence and limited probative value of references; curative instructions suffice	Statements invited improper inference of other crimes and required mistrial	No mistrial: court found many references admissible or not intentionally elicited, gave immediate curative instructions, and limited prosecutor’s closing references
Sufficiency/specificity of final jury instruction about other misconduct	General instruction suffices and avoids repeating improper statements	Instruction was too general and could confuse jurors about which incidences to disregard	No plain error: final instruction appropriate, not likely to mislead, and specific references risked highlighting the improper statements

Key Cases Cited

State v. Amos, 658 N.W.2d 201 (Minn. 2003) (trial-court evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Robinson, 718 N.W.2d 400 (Minn. 2006) (harmless-error standard for nonconstitutional evidentiary errors)
State v. Schulz, 691 N.W.2d 474 (Minn. 2005) (rule 403 unfair-prejudice definition)
State v. Bahtuoh, 840 N.W.2d 804 (Minn. 2013) (district court best positioned to assess trial events impacting prejudice)
State v. Manthey, 711 N.W.2d 498 (Minn. 2006) (mistrial standard; abuse of discretion review)
State v. Underwood, 281 N.W.2d 337 (Minn. 1979) (duty to caution witnesses against prejudicial statements)
State v. Miller, 573 N.W.2d 661 (Minn. 1998) (curative instructions can cure unintentional references to other bad acts)
State v. Haglund, 267 N.W.2d 503 (Minn. 1978) (distinguishing intentional elicitation of prejudicial testimony)
State v. Johnson, 192 N.W.2d 87 (Minn. 1971) (erroneous admission cured by striking evidence and clear instruction to disregard)
State v. Caldwell, 322 N.W.2d 574 (Minn. 1982) (circumstances where curative instructions may be insufficient)
State v. Huffstutler, 130 N.W.2d 347 (Minn. 1964) (recognizing limits of curative admonitions)
State v. McCurry, 770 N.W.2d 553 (Minn. App. 2009) (presumption jurors follow instructions)
State v. Hall, 764 N.W.2d 837 (Minn. 2009) (jurors-follow-instructions principle)
State v. Gatson, 801 N.W.2d 134 (Minn. 2011) (trial court has latitude in instruction language)
State v. Taylor, 869 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2015) (jury-instruction error review and plain-error standard)
State v. Matthews, 779 N.W.2d 543 (Minn. 2010) (plain-error standard elements)