State v. Pierce
2010 Minn. App. LEXIS 172
Minn. Ct. App.2010Background
- Hennepin County extended of p to Pierce; domestic abuse order prohibited all contact, including electronic.
- Pierce sent an email to Kuhrman from a MySpace account; message contained his name and photo.
- Kuhrman reported the message; state charged Pierce in Hennepin County with OFP violation.
- Trial record lacked direct evidence of Pierce’s location when sending or Kuhrman’s location when receiving.
- District court refused to limit venue to origin; but court made factual finding that Kuhrman received in her home in Minneapolis.
- Court of appeals held venue rests on either sender’s location or recipient’s location, but found insufficient evidence in this case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue lies only in origin county of the email | Pierce: venue limited to origin county | Pierce: venue may be based on recipient location too | Not limited to origin; venue may be either location |
| Whether the state proved venue in Hennepin County | State proved venue by recipient in Hennepin | State failed to prove recipient in Hennepin | Venue not proved in Hennepin |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bellfield, 275 N.W.2d 577 (Minn. 1978) (venue proper where conduct occurs or resulting impact occurs)
- State v. Bahri, 514 N.W.2d 580 (Minn.App.1994) (circumstantial evidence can prove venue)
- State v. Larsen, 442 N.W.2d 840 (Minn.App.1989) (venue by circumstantial evidence possible)
- In re Collier, 726 N.W.2d 799 (Minn.2007) (questions of law reviewed de novo)
- State v. Jones, 516 N.W.2d 545 (Minn.1994) (circumstantial-evidence scrutiny)
- Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 290 Minn. 518 (Minn. 1971) (arguments not supported by authorities waived)