State of Minnesota v. Tracee Chung, A16-45

Background

In 2011 Tracee Chung helped co-defendant Sleum Prodfuang traffic marijuana and pleaded guilty to a fifth-degree controlled-substance offense.
Chung and Prodfuang later lived together; neighbors observed frequent short-term visitors and suspected drug activity.
On June 19, 2014 police stopped a visitor and Prodfuang after a suspected deal; a search warrant for Chung’s home followed.
Search of Chung’s residence uncovered ~235 pounds of marijuana, packaging materials, scales, $6,000 cash, and records of nearly $100,000 in cash deposits.
Phone records and texts tied Chung to Prodfuang and to a third person (“Wini”) who transported marijuana from the West Coast; Chung placed a call to Wini while the load was en route and sent texts seeking large sums as reimbursement.
Jury acquitted Chung of conspiracy but convicted her of aiding and abetting the sale of 50+ kilograms of marijuana; she appeals on multiple grounds and the conviction is affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for aiding-and-abetting	State: evidence showed Chung actively aided/supplied money/contacts; supports conviction	Chung: no specific affirmative acts proved; circumstantial evidence permits rational inferences of innocence	Affirmed—evidence (texts, calls, money, large stash, past involvement) supports multiple affirmative acts and satisfies circumstantial-evidence test
Unanimity instruction	State: not required because evidence showed a single pattern of conduct	Chung: jury should have been instructed to unanimously agree on the specific affirmative act forming accomplice liability	No reversible error; unanimity instruction unnecessary for a pattern/grouping of acts and any omission was harmless given overwhelming evidence
Admission of 2011 drug-dealing evidence (Spreigl/404(b))	State: prior act shows common scheme, knowledge, relationship to Prodfuang and intent	Chung: probative value outweighed by unfair prejudice; district court relied improperly on state’s need	Affirmed—district court did not abuse discretion; prior act relevant to scheme and intent and limiting instruction offered
Quashing subpoena duces tecum for detective’s unrelated files	Chung: needed reports to impeach/expose bias; denial infringed confrontation/compulsory-process rights	State: disclosure unnecessary; prosecution provided a memorandum describing officer’s experience; request sought confidential unrelated files	Affirmed—district court acted within discretion; Chung failed to make a plausible showing of materiality; no constitutional violation shown
Post-verdict denial of bail	Chung: constitutional right to bail violated between verdict and sentencing	State: issue is moot after conviction	Moot—court notes bail issue is moot following conviction

Key Cases Cited

Roby v. State, 547 N.W.2d 354 (Minn. 1996) (appellate review limited to theories raised below)
State v. Al-Naseer, 788 N.W.2d 469 (Minn. 2010) (two-step circumstantial-evidence sufficiency test)
State v. Silvernail, 831 N.W.2d 594 (Minn. 2013) (independent review of inferences in circumstantial-evidence cases)
State v. Pendleton, 725 N.W.2d 717 (Minn. 2007) (jury unanimity rules and when unanimity instruction is required)
State v. Ness, 707 N.W.2d 676 (Minn. 2006) (probative value vs. unfair prejudice balancing for other-acts evidence)
State v. Scruggs, 822 N.W.2d 631 (Minn. 2012) (consideration of state’s need when admitting Spreigl evidence)
Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987) (Confrontation Clause not a pretrial discovery right)
State v. Hummel, 483 N.W.2d 68 (Minn. 1992) (defendant must make a plausible showing that requested confidential information is material and favorable)