State v. Gunderson
2012 Minn. App. LEXIS 14
| Minn. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Gunderson was subject to a harassment restraining order (HRO) issued by his mother and served on him, effective 2009–2011.
- On July 5, 2010, Gunderson was on the mother’s ten‑acre parcel, in her garage, and in a shed on the parcel, with knowledge of the HRO.
- Gunderson admitted he knew of the HRO and that it was in effect, and testified he believed it barred only contact with his mother and entering the house.
- He argued the HRO’s terms did not clearly prohibit presence on parts of the parcel such as the shed and garage.
- Trial proceeded with Gunderson proceeding pro se and seeking advisory counsel; the district court refused to appoint advisory counsel.
- The jury was instructed that a violation of the HRO requires knowledge of the order but the instruction did not specify the “knowingly violates” element for a felony violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the knowledge element for felony HRO violation was correctly instructed | Gunderson: instruction misstated law by omitting 'knowingly' | State: instruction followed the statute; knowledge of the order sufficed | Plain error; instruction failed to include 'knowingly' element for felony case |
| Whether advisory counsel should have been appointed | Gunderson requested advisory counsel; court relied on §611.17 | State: advisory counsel not required by statute | Affirmative; remand for advisory-counsel decision |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to convict on felony HRO | Knowledge element and scope of HRO disputed; conflict undermines conviction | State: conduct on the parcel, garage, shed violated the HRO with knowledge | Conviction reversed for new trial; admissible evidence supports retrial with proper instruction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Vance, 734 N.W.2d 650 (Minn.2007) (plain-error review for jury instructions)
- State v. Colvin, 629 N.W.2d 135 (Minn.App.2001) (related to OFP elements (reversed) and later overruled by supreme court)
- State v. Koppi, 798 N.W.2d 358 (Minn.2011) (CRIMJIG deviations from law are error)
- State v. Clark, 722 N.W.2d 460 (Minn.2006) (advisory counsel authority independent of statute)
- State v. Ramey, 721 N.W.2d 294 (Minn.2006) (plain error standard applied to verdict issues)
- Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91 (1945) (plain-error doctrine applies to omissions in instruction)
- State v. Al-Naseer, 734 N.W.2d 679 (Minn.2007) (definition of 'knowingly' as applied to statute)
- Harrison ex rel. Harrison v. Harrison, 733 N.W.2d 451 (Minn.2007) (legislative terms indicate different meanings for knowledges/intent)
- State v. Kelley, 734 N.W.2d 689 (Minn.App.2007) (CRIMJIG not binding when conflicting with statute)