State of Minnesota v. Jessica Corinne Anich
A16-347
| Minn. Ct. App. | Oct 24, 2016Background
- On Jan. 26, 2015, J. Anich and her boyfriend C.S. were involved in an incident where C.S. allegedly pointed a replica shotgun at another driver; police were called and later obtained a warrant to search their home.
- Police recovered a black airsoft replica shotgun matching the complainant’s description; officers believed a real firearm had been removed before their arrival.
- C.S. has a prior felony conviction that would prohibit firearm possession; Anich was charged with two counts of aiding an offender for allegedly removing/concealing a firearm to help C.S. avoid arrest.
- Anich moved to dismiss for lack of probable cause; at the pretrial (Florence) hearing the district court concluded the state failed to show probable cause that C.S. possessed a firearm and dismissed the aiding-offender charges.
- The state appealed, arguing (1) the district court applied the wrong burden regarding the underlying offense, (2) an aiding conviction does not require a conviction of the underlying offender, and (3) evidence was sufficient to show C.S. constructively possessed a firearm and that Anich aided him.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper burden for underlying-offense element at a probable-cause (Florence) hearing | State: only probable-cause / fact-question standard required; not beyond reasonable doubt | Anich: district court appeared to require proof that the underlying offense occurred (court referenced beyond-a-reasonable-doubt language) | Court: State needed only to present a fact question for the jury on each element (probable-cause standard governs); district court also referred to probable cause and applied correct standard overall |
| Whether an aiding-an-offender conviction requires conviction of the underlying offender | State: conviction of offender is not required to sustain aiding-an-offender charge | Anich: argued district court treated underlying conviction as necessary | Court: Agrees with state — statute requires that a criminal act be committed, not that the offender be convicted (conviction not required) |
| Sufficiency of evidence to establish constructive possession by C.S. (and thus probable cause for aiding) | State: circumstantial evidence (ammunition, safe linked to C.S., DNA on safe) and alleged confession support constructive possession | Anich: police never found a firearm; evidence insufficient to show C.S. had dominion/control or that a firearm existed in the residence | Court: Evidence insufficient — police did not find a firearm, and the cited circumstantial evidence did not establish the ‘‘strong probability’’ of conscious dominion required for constructive possession; alleged confession not supported in the record |
| Whether dismissal was reversible legal error | State: district court erred in legal conclusions and dismissal should be reversed | Anich: dismissal proper for lack of probable cause | Held: Affirmed — state failed to show the district court clearly and unequivocally erred |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442, 239 N.W.2d 892 (Minn. 1976) (describing purpose and burden at preliminary probable-cause/Floresence hearing)
- State v. Lopez, 778 N.W.2d 700 (Minn. 2010) (probable-cause dismissal should be denied where facts present a jury fact question on each element)
- State v. Townsend, 872 N.W.2d 758 (Minn. App. 2015) (aiding statute requires commission of a criminal act, not conviction)
- State v. Salyers, 858 N.W.2d 156 (Minn. 2015) (possession of a firearm may be actual or constructive; constructive-possession legal standard reviewed de novo)
- State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 226 N.W.2d 609 (Minn. 1975) (elements for establishing constructive possession: exclusive control or strong probability of conscious dominion)