State of Minnesota v. Benton Louis Beyer

• Court: Court of Appeals of Minnesota
• Decided: January 29, 2024
• Docket: a230263
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A23-0263

State of Minnesota, Respondent,

vs.

Benton Louis Beyer, Appellant.

Filed January 29, 2024 Affirmed Segal, Chief Judge

Stearns County District Court File No. 73-CR-21-5130

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Janelle P. Kendall, Stearns County Attorney, Ole Tvedten, Assistant County Attorney, St. Cloud, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Steven P. Russett, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Gaïtas, Presiding Judge; Segal, Chief Judge; and Cleary,

Judge. ∗

∗ Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10. NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION

SEGAL, Chief Judge

In this direct appeal from the judgment of conviction for multiple offenses,

including two counts of second-degree assault with a dangerous weapon, appellant argues

that his statutorily enhanced sentences of 105 months in prison must be reduced to 84

months because the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the second-degree

assaults were committed “because of” another’s race or color. We affirm.

FACTS

In September 2022, a jury found appellant Benton Louis Beyer guilty of seven

offenses, including two counts of second-degree assault. The jury also found the presence

of several aggravating factors, including that the assaults were committed “because of”

another’s actual or perceived race or color. If a second-degree assault with a dangerous

weapon is committed “because of” another’s race or color, the statutory maximum sentence

is increased by 25%, from 84 months in prison to 105 months. See Minn. Stat. §§ 609.222,

subd. 1, .2233 (2020). The victims of Beyer’s offenses were members of a family who had

no relationship to Beyer except for Beyer’s mistaken belief that Beyer’s girlfriend, G.R.,

had “cheated” on him with an adult son of the family. The following is a summary of the

facts established at trial.

The romantic relationship between Beyer and G.R. began in August 2020. A couple

of months after their relationship began, G.R. “cheated” on Beyer with a biracial coworker

who worked at the brewery where G.R. was then employed (the brewery coworker). G.R.

eventually told Beyer about the infidelity, but it “took [her] awhile to tell him.” She could

2 not recall exactly when she told Beyer, but believed it was in the spring of 2021. 1 G.R.

worked with the brewery coworker for a “[v]ery, very short time” before the individual

quit and moved to California; she did not see him after he quit and never saw him when

she was with Beyer.

Beyer was very upset about the infidelity and confronted G.R. about it on numerous

occasions. He frequently used racial slurs and racially charged language when referring to

the individual and the infidelity. For example, Beyer accused G.R. of having “jungle

fever,” being an “n[-word] lover,” and going to an “n[-word] fam house.” Beyer also used

racial slurs in posts on G.R.’s social-media accounts. A neighbor of Beyer and G.R.

testified at the trial that she could hear the couple fighting about the infidelity and that she

heard Beyer yelling about “f-cking n[-word]s.” Additionally, Beyer sometimes became

upset when he was with G.R. and they saw a Black male.

In April 2021, G.R. began a new job at a group home. The family, who were the

victims in this case, lived “approximately two houses” away from the group home. The

father, P.R., is Black and the mother, A.R., is White. They have three younger children,

and P.R. has an adult son who is Black and was living with the family at the time. G.R.

did not know any of the members of the family, including the adult son. Her only

connection to the family is that she was employed at a group home that happened to be

located on the same block. Based on statements made by Beyer, he apparently believed

that P.R.’s adult son was the brewery coworker with whom G.R. had “cheated.”

1 Text messages confirm that Beyer was aware of the infidelity in early May 2021.

3 Beginning in May 2021, the family experienced incidents of vandalism outside their

home. For example, in early May, someone shattered a window of one of the family’s cars

parked at their house. Approximately a week later, someone threw a rock through the

sunroof of one of the family’s other cars. The family installed security cameras after the

first incident and reported both incidents to law enforcement. After the second incident,

A.R. and P.R. reviewed footage from the security cameras. While reviewing the footage,

they noticed two vehicles that they recognized as having driven by their house on multiple

occasions. Through law enforcement’s investigation into the vandalism, A.R. and P.R.

learned that the vehicles belonged to Beyer and that his girlfriend worked at the nearby

group home.

When P.R. observed one of Beyer’s cars near the family’s house on May 17, P.R.

confronted Beyer, asked him why he kept driving by the house, and accused Beyer of

damaging the family’s cars. Beyer called 911 and reported that a “Black dude” had pulled

out a knife and was threatening him and calling him names. When law enforcement

arrived, Beyer told the officer that P.R. had a black and gray knife that was open and

approximately eight inches in length. P.R. admitted that he had a small, orange pocketknife

on his person during the confrontation, but denied showing it to Beyer. After the officer

viewed video from the family’s security camera of the interaction, the officer left and law

enforcement took no further action. The following day, G.R. sent Beyer several text

messages informing him that the police were at her workplace because they thought Beyer

was there. Beyer was not there, but G.R. had driven one of Beyer’s cars to work. Beyer

responded, “That n[-word] called them.”

4 A.R. subsequently obtained an ex parte harassment restraining order (HRO) against

Beyer on behalf of herself and her minor children. The HRO prohibited Beyer from being

within 1,000 feet of the family’s house. In mid-June 2021, P.R. again observed Beyer drive

by P.R.’s house. By that time, G.R. was no longer working at the group home. Law

enforcement located Beyer driving near the residence and pulled him over; Beyer later

called G.R. and suggested it was her fault that he got pulled over because it “ha[d]

something to do with” her. On July 15, 2021, A.R. called law enforcement because she

saw Beyer several times while she was shopping and believed that Beyer was violating the

HRO. Law enforcement responded and arrested Beyer for violating the HRO. The

following day, Beyer told his sister during a phone call that G.R. was cheating on him with

the son of the woman who had a restraining order against him.

G.R. left Minnesota on July 17, 2021, and traveled to California without Beyer.

Throughout July, Beyer continued to bring up G.R.’s infidelity and use racial slurs. Beyer

sent G.R. two Facebook messages with one message saying: “You have no care for me

whatsoever no love and you never did all you were was a n[-word] lover.” The second

message referred to G.R. as “[j]ungle fever” followed by expletives. In a Facebook

message to one of G.R.’s friends, Beyer wrote that G.R. “has cheated on me many times

and with some n[-word].” G.R. left Minnesota on July 17, 2021, and traveled to California

without Beyer. Beyer thereafter sent G.R. numerous messages asking her when she would

be back.

Throughout the evening of July 23 and the early morning of July 24, Beyer

continued to send G.R. messages through various media platforms, telling her he loved her

5 and asking her to come back. He accused G.R. of leaving him and not wanting him, and

informed her that “[i]t hurts.” At approximately 2:00 in the morning, he sent a message

that read, “I know what I’m thinking about doing.” He sent a final message at

approximately 4:50 a.m.

About 20 minutes later, Beyer left his apartment. He drove within a few blocks of

a friend’s house and parked. At 5:30 a.m., Beyer’s friend called 911 to report that his Ford

Excursion had just been stolen from his driveway. When asked if he knew who stole his

car, he responded, “Benton Beyer I’m guessing. He had stole[n] my keys.” Five minutes

later, A.R. called 911 to report that someone had just crashed a Ford Excursion into her

house. No one was injured, but one of the minor children had been sleeping on a couch

only a few feet away from where the vehicle crashed into the house. Beyer fled the scene

but was located and arrested later that day. Following his arrest, Beyer called G.R. several

times from jail. During one of these phone calls, Beyer referred to A.R. as the mother of

the individual with whom G.R. cheated on him, and stated he was “pretty sure [G.R.]

kn[e]w her.”

Respondent State of Minnesota charged Beyer with 11 offenses: two counts of

stalking, three counts of damage to property, 2 three counts of violation of an HRO, theft,

and two counts of second-degree assault. The state also filed a notice of its intent to seek

an aggravated sentence on the second-degree-assault offenses because the offenses

2 Two of these charges were premised on the allegation that Beyer was the individual who damaged the family’s cars in May 2021. The other charge was based on damage to the residence resulting from the crash.

6 occurred in the presence of a child, in an area where the victim had an expectation of

privacy, and were committed “because of” another’s race or color.

A jury found Beyer guilty of seven offenses, including the two counts of second-

degree assault. The jury acquitted Beyer of the two damage-to-property charges relating

to the family’s cars, one count of stalking, and the HRO-violation charge relating to the

July 15 shopping incident. Regarding the aggravated-sentencing factors, the jury found

that the state had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the two assault offenses occurred

in the presence of a child, in an area where the victims had an expectation of privacy, and

were committed “because of” another’s race or color. The district court sentenced Beyer

to the enhanced maximum sentence of 105 months for each of the assault convictions and

to 21 months in prison for theft of the friend’s car, and ordered that the three sentences be

served concurrently.

DECISION

Beyer argues that his sentences for second-degree assault must be reduced from 105

months in prison to 84 months because the evidence is insufficient to establish that he

committed the assaults “because of” another’s race or color. He contends that, even if the

circumstances proved support a rational hypothesis that he committed the assaults “because

of” another’s race or color, the evidence equally supports the alternate rational hypotheses

that he committed the assaults because of jealousy or in retaliation for the HRO, not the

family’s race or color. He maintains that the enhanced sentence was thus erroneous and

his sentence must be reduced.

7 We review the sufficiency of the evidence for jury determinations on sentencing

issues in the same manner that we review the sufficiency of the evidence to support a

conviction. See State v. Gundy, 915 N.W.2d 757, 767 (Minn. App. 2018), rev. denied

(Minn. Aug. 7, 2018). When assessing a claim of insufficient evidence, appellate courts

review the record to determine “whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most

favorable to the conviction, is sufficient to allow the jurors to reach their verdict.” State v.

Olhausen, 681 N.W.2d 21, 25 (Minn. 2004). We

assume that the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary. We will not disturb the verdict if the jury, while acting with proper regard for the presumption of innocence and regard for the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the charged offense.

Id. at 25-26 (citations omitted).

The state relied on circumstantial evidence at trial to prove Beyer’s intent in

committing the assaults. When a conviction or, as in this case, an enhanced sentence is

based on circumstantial evidence, we use a two-step process to evaluate the sufficiency of

that evidence. State v. Silvernail, 831 N.W.2d 594, 598 (Minn. 2013). First, we identify

the circumstances proved, assuming that the jury resolved any factual disputes in a manner

that is consistent with the jury’s verdict. Id. at 598-99. Second, we independently examine

the reasonableness of the inferences the jury could draw from those circumstances. Id. at

599. All circumstances proved must be consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any

rational hypothesis except that of guilt. State v. Andersen, 784 N.W.2d 320, 329 (Minn.

2010).

8 Applying that standard, the circumstances proved in this case include the following:

• Beyer repeatedly displayed animus toward people who are Black. • Beyer was aware that the brewery coworker is biracial and made repeated comments to G.R. that focused on the race of the brewery coworker, accusing her, for example, of having “jungle fever” and repeatedly used the term “half- Black” or “f-cking n[-word]” to describe the males G.R. would “cheat” on him with. • P.R., his adult son, and his other children are Black or biracial. • Neither Beyer nor G.R. had any connection to P.R., A.R., or their children other than the happenstance that their house was on the same block as the group home where G.R. worked for a period of time. • Beyer made multiple statements indicating that he believed A.R. was the mother of the brewery coworker. • P.R.’s adult son did not know G.R. • Beyer used racial epithets in referring to P.R., A.R., and their family.

This court has previously examined the standard for proving that an offense was

committed “because of” another’s race or color for purposes of sentencing in an assault

case. See In re Welfare of S.M.J., 556 N.W.2d 4, 6-7 (Minn. App. 1996). This court

explained:

Minnesota is not unique in using “because of” in its formulation of bias assault; other courts have interpreted the same words in similar statutes to require the state to prove a causal connection between the infliction of injury and the assailant’s perception of the group to which the victim belongs. By requiring a causal link, the statutes exclude offenses committed by a person who entertains racial or other bias but whose bias is not in substantial part what motivated the offense.

Id. (citations omitted). The court then analyzed the specific facts of that case, which

primarily consisted of the offender’s use of a racial slur both for a “period of months”

before and during the assault, and determined that there was “sufficient evidence of a causal

connection between” the assault and the victim’s race. Id. at 7.

9 Here, the facts proved support the rational inference that Beyer committed the

assaults “because of” the family’s race or color. The only reason for Beyer’s mistaken

belief that P.R.’s adult son was the male with whom G.R. “cheated” is the son’s race. When

Beyer spoke about G.R.’s infidelity, his language was racially charged. For example,

Beyer messaged one of G.R.’s friends stating that she “has cheated on me many times with

some n[-word].” The neighbor of Beyer and G.R. testified at trial that she could hear the

couple fighting about the infidelity and that she heard Beyer yelling about “f-cking

[n-words].” Beyer also used racial epithets in describing the family and frequently made

racist comments. And shortly before committing the assaults, Beyer messaged G.R.

accusing her of having “jungle fever” and stating: “You have no care for me whatsoever,

no love and you never did, all you were was a n[-word] lover.”

While we agree that merely making racist comments is not enough to satisfy the

state’s burden of proof, id., the evidence here ties Beyer’s racialized comments directly to

this family. Under the standard articulated in S.M.J., the state needed only “to prove a

causal connection between the infliction of injury and the assailant’s perception of the

group to which the victim belongs.” Id. at 6-7. We conclude that the facts proved here

satisfy that standard. We also conclude that the facts proved do not support the alternate

hypotheses posited by Beyer.

First, Beyer argues that the facts proved demonstrate that he was just acting out of

a jealous rage because he believed that P.R.’s son was the same person as the brewery

coworker. He maintains that, because the brewery coworker was biracial, it only makes

sense that he would single out a Black or biracial male and not a White male. But this

10 argument ignores the proven fact that the diatribes about G.R.’s infidelity were intertwined

with racially derogatory language about being Black or having a relationship with people

who are Black. It also ignores the proven fact that Beyer picked out this family only

because of their race and the happenstance that they lived on the same block as the group

home where G.R. worked.

Second, Beyer argues that the circumstances proved support the rational hypotheses

that he committed the assaults in retaliation for his confrontation with P.R. or because A.R.

had obtained an HRO that he was arrested for violating. We again disagree. First, the

confrontation between Beyer and P.R. happened on May 17 and the assaults did not occur

until July 24, over two months later. In addition, Beyer was arrested for violating the HRO

nine days before the assaults, but it is clear from the record that his focus in the days leading

up to the assaults related to G.R.’s having left for California on July 17—two days after

the last incident involving the HRO. Beyer thereafter sent her numerous messages begging

her to come back. He sent his last message to G.R. approximately 20 minutes before he

left his apartment to steal his friend’s car and drive it into the family’s house. And in his

phone calls to G.R. following his arrest, Beyer repeated his allegations that A.R. was the

mother of the brewery coworker and that G.R. knew the family. These circumstances

negate Beyer’s argument that they support a rational alternate hypothesis that the assaults

were motivated by retaliation for the HRO.

Under these facts, there is sufficient evidence to support the jury’s determination

that Beyer committed the assaults “because of” another’s race or color. See Minn. Stat.

§ 609.2233. The evidence demonstrates not just that Beyer exhibited racial bias, but also

11 that there is a causal connection linking Beyer’s racial bias and his commission of the

assaults. We therefore affirm the district court’s imposition of the enhanced sentences of

105 months for the assault offenses.

Affirmed.