State of Minnesota v. Vernon Dale Howard, Sr.
A16-0957
| Minn. Ct. App. | Feb 21, 2017Background
- Vernon Howard was charged after an assault; charged counts included second-degree assault, third-degree assault, and possession of ammunition by a prohibited person (among seven counts).
- At trial the jury was instructed that second-degree assault required use of a dangerous weapon; third-degree assault instructions did not require weapon use, but a verdict interrogatory asked whether a dangerous weapon other than a firearm was used for the third-degree count under Minn. Stat. § 609.11.
- Police recovered a .410 shotgun shell on Howard at arrest; Howard claimed the shell was planted and did not contest that he was a prohibited person.
- Howard appealed his convictions and sentences: (1) sufficiency challenge to possession-of-ammunition conviction, arguing the .410 shell did not meet the statutory definition of “ammunition”; (2) sentencing challenge claiming an instructional error made second- and third-degree assault identical, requiring resentencing to the lesser offense.
- The district court convicted Howard; judgment imposed 71 months (second-degree assault), consecutive 12 months + 1 day (threatening), and concurrent 60 months (possession of ammunition). The court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that the .410 shell was “ammunition” under statutes | State: evidence showed Howard possessed the shell; statutes define ammunition to include cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or propellant powder designed for use in firearms | Howard: without evidence how the .410 shell fires (primer, propellant, bullet), it may not meet statutory definition — raised first on appeal | Court: Did not reach statutory-interpretation issue because Howard failed to raise it in district court and addressing it on appeal would disadvantage the State; conviction affirmed |
| Alleged jury-instruction error merging elements of 2nd- and 3rd-degree assault and sentencing relief | Howard: interrogatory and instructions made third-degree assault include weapon-use, making both counts identical; lenity/lesser-included-offense principles require vacating 2nd-degree sentence | State: procedural default/no proper objection; any error would be harmless; sentencing statute controls | Court: No statutory ambiguity warranting lenity; § 609.035 permits sentencing on the most serious offense arising from one behavioral incident; Howard did not show prejudice or reasonable doubt between offenses; sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Webb v. State, 440 N.W.2d 426 (Minn. 1989) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Brooks v. State, 587 N.W.2d 37 (Minn. 1998) (deference to jury credibility determinations)
- Bernhardt v. State, 684 N.W.2d 465 (Minn. 2004) (standard for upholding jury verdicts under reasonable-doubt requirement)
- Roby v. State, 547 N.W.2d 354 (Minn. 1996) (court generally will not consider issues not raised in district court)
- McKenzie v. State, 872 N.W.2d 865 (Minn. 2015) (exceptions when an undecided issue is dispositive and no party is disadvantaged)
- Griller v. State, 583 N.W.2d 736 (Minn. 1998) (plain-error review for unobjected-to jury instructions)
- Ferguson v. State, 808 N.W.2d 586 (Minn. 2012) (§ 609.035 protects against multiple punishments for the same behavioral incident; sentence for the most serious offense is appropriate)
- Nelson v. State, 842 N.W.2d 433 (Minn. 2014) (rule of lenity applies only when statutory ambiguity remains after applying other canons)