This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012).
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A13-2123
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
vs.
Kyle Richard Dobson, Appellant.
Filed August 25, 2014 Affirmed Chutich, Judge
Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-CR-12-32172
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and
Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Linda K. Jenny, Assistant County Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)
Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Rochelle R. Winn, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Halbrooks, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Chutich,
Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
CHUTICH, Judge
On appeal from his convictions of prohibited person in possession of a firearm,
fleeing a peace officer, and fifth-degree drug possession, appellant Kyle Richard Dobson contends that the prosecutor committed misconduct during her closing argument and that
he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Because the prosecutor properly
argued an inference from the record and the performance of Dobson’s counsel was not
objectively unreasonable, we affirm.
FACTS
In the early morning hours of September 25, 2012, Dobson was with J.L. and J.S.
at a motel in Burnsville. Along with a few others, they were drinking alcohol and
smoking methamphetamine in the motel room. J.S. saw Dobson with methamphetamine.
J.L. gave J.S. methamphetamine, which J.S. understood came from Dobson. Eventually
Dobson agreed to give J.L. and J.S. a ride home. On their way, they stopped for gas at a
Holiday gas station in Bloomington.
Around 7:00 a.m. that morning, Officer Douglas Barland and Officer Mark
Schiebel of the Bloomington Police Department were at the same Holiday gas station.
Officer Barland saw a man, later identified as Dobson, talking on a cell phone at the
store’s counter. Dobson appeared to receive a credit card number over the phone to make
his payment, leading the officer to suspect that he may be committing financial
transaction card fraud. Officer Barland also saw that the pick-up truck that Dobson
entered did not have a front license plate. Before the officers could investigate further,
the truck left the gas station.
At about 7:20 a.m., the officers learned that a person living nearby reported that a
man was running through residential yards. Officers Barland and Schiebel left the gas
2 station to investigate and found the suspicious truck that was at the gas station earlier.
Dobson was driving the truck, with J.S. and J.L. as passengers.
After seeing Dobson turn left onto southbound Xerxes Avenue without appearing
to signal or fully stop, Officer Barland activated his siren to stop the truck. But Dobson
kept driving at about 45 miles per hour, and he did not stop or signal before turning left
onto 90th Street. Dobson drove at about 60 miles per hour along 90th Street. J.S., who
was sitting between Dobson and J.L. in the cab of the truck, saw Dobson holding a gun
and saw him throw it out of the driver’s side window.
Dobson pulled over at the top of the hill on 90th Street, just west of Queen
Avenue. As soon as the truck stopped, J.L. and J.S. jumped out. The police ordered J.L.
and J.S. to the ground, while Dobson remained in the vehicle. Dobson was initially
uncooperative with the police, but he eventually complied with their commands.
The officers arrested Dobson and the two passengers. As they were investigating
the scene, the officers discovered a small bag of methamphetamine on the ground near
the front passenger door of the truck. At the jail, J.S. told the police that she saw Dobson
throw a gun out of the window of the truck after they turned onto 90th Street.
As the police searched the neighborhood for the gun, a neighborhood resident
informed them that an object hit his wife’s car earlier that morning. The resident’s wife,
K.B., had pulled over as she was driving down 90th Street because she saw police cars
and a speeding pick-up truck traveling toward her. As the truck passed K.B., she noticed
the driver looking in her direction and then heard a “loud noise hitting the car.” Officer
Barland met with K.B. that day and observed scratches on the windshield and “rubber
3 scuff mark[s]” on the hood of her car. He thought that this damage was consistent with
the car having recently been struck by the firearm that Dobson threw out the truck’s
window.
Later in the day, another neighborhood resident, M.J., reported to the police that
he found a .38 revolver during his morning walk that day near the intersection of 90th
Street and Vincent Avenue South. This location is where K.B.’s car was struck by an
object.
In viewing two of the squad videos taken during the pursuit, the officers saw that,
immediately after J.L. and J.S. left the truck after it pulled over, Dobson threw a small
object out of the passenger window. The officers determined that it was the bag of
methamphetamine that they recovered on the ground outside of the truck.
On September 27, 2012, the state charged Dobson with the crimes of prohibited
person in possession of a firearm, fleeing a peace officer in a motor vehicle, and fifth-
degree possession of a controlled substance. See Minn. Stat. §§ 152.025, subd. 2(a)(1),
609.487, subd. 3, 624.713, subds. 1(2), 2(b) (2010).
A jury trial ensued. The state’s witnesses included J.S.; officers from the
Bloomington Police Department; the witness who found the gun; the witness whose car
was damaged; and two forensic scientists from the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension.
The district court admitted the squad car video recordings from the morning of the
offenses. The state presented forensic evidence that Dobson’s DNA was the predominant
profile on the gun’s trigger. Dobson did not testify.
The jury found Dobson guilty of all three counts. This appeal followed.
4 DECISION
I. Prosecutorial Misconduct
Dobson asserts that the prosecutor erred when she told the jury during closing
argument that he sold methamphetamine because Dobson was not charged with selling
drugs and the statements were not supported by the record. Because Dobson did not
object to the alleged misconduct at trial, we review under a modified plain-error standard.
See State v. Ramey, 721 N.W.2d 294, 302 (Minn. 2006). Under this standard, Dobson
must show that error occurred and that it was plain. Id. If Dobson shows plain error, the
burden shifts to the state to show that the error did not affect the defendant’s substantial
rights. Id.
A prosecutor’s actions may be misconduct if they have the effect of materially
undermining the fairness of a trial or if they violate “clear or established standards of
conduct, e.g., rules, laws, orders by a district court, or clear commands in this state’s case
law.” State v. Fields, 730 N.W.2d 777, 782 (Minn. 2007). A prosecutor may not make
statements in closing arguments that do not have support in the trial record. State v.
Kirvelay, 311 Minn. 201, 202, 248 N.W.2d 310, 311 (1976). Prosecutors must also
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012).
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A13-2123
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
vs.
Kyle Richard Dobson, Appellant.
Filed August 25, 2014 Affirmed Chutich, Judge
Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-CR-12-32172
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and
Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Linda K. Jenny, Assistant County Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)
Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Rochelle R. Winn, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Halbrooks, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Chutich,
Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
CHUTICH, Judge
On appeal from his convictions of prohibited person in possession of a firearm,
fleeing a peace officer, and fifth-degree drug possession, appellant Kyle Richard Dobson contends that the prosecutor committed misconduct during her closing argument and that
he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Because the prosecutor properly
argued an inference from the record and the performance of Dobson’s counsel was not
objectively unreasonable, we affirm.
FACTS
In the early morning hours of September 25, 2012, Dobson was with J.L. and J.S.
at a motel in Burnsville. Along with a few others, they were drinking alcohol and
smoking methamphetamine in the motel room. J.S. saw Dobson with methamphetamine.
J.L. gave J.S. methamphetamine, which J.S. understood came from Dobson. Eventually
Dobson agreed to give J.L. and J.S. a ride home. On their way, they stopped for gas at a
Holiday gas station in Bloomington.
Around 7:00 a.m. that morning, Officer Douglas Barland and Officer Mark
Schiebel of the Bloomington Police Department were at the same Holiday gas station.
Officer Barland saw a man, later identified as Dobson, talking on a cell phone at the
store’s counter. Dobson appeared to receive a credit card number over the phone to make
his payment, leading the officer to suspect that he may be committing financial
transaction card fraud. Officer Barland also saw that the pick-up truck that Dobson
entered did not have a front license plate. Before the officers could investigate further,
the truck left the gas station.
At about 7:20 a.m., the officers learned that a person living nearby reported that a
man was running through residential yards. Officers Barland and Schiebel left the gas
2 station to investigate and found the suspicious truck that was at the gas station earlier.
Dobson was driving the truck, with J.S. and J.L. as passengers.
After seeing Dobson turn left onto southbound Xerxes Avenue without appearing
to signal or fully stop, Officer Barland activated his siren to stop the truck. But Dobson
kept driving at about 45 miles per hour, and he did not stop or signal before turning left
onto 90th Street. Dobson drove at about 60 miles per hour along 90th Street. J.S., who
was sitting between Dobson and J.L. in the cab of the truck, saw Dobson holding a gun
and saw him throw it out of the driver’s side window.
Dobson pulled over at the top of the hill on 90th Street, just west of Queen
Avenue. As soon as the truck stopped, J.L. and J.S. jumped out. The police ordered J.L.
and J.S. to the ground, while Dobson remained in the vehicle. Dobson was initially
uncooperative with the police, but he eventually complied with their commands.
The officers arrested Dobson and the two passengers. As they were investigating
the scene, the officers discovered a small bag of methamphetamine on the ground near
the front passenger door of the truck. At the jail, J.S. told the police that she saw Dobson
throw a gun out of the window of the truck after they turned onto 90th Street.
As the police searched the neighborhood for the gun, a neighborhood resident
informed them that an object hit his wife’s car earlier that morning. The resident’s wife,
K.B., had pulled over as she was driving down 90th Street because she saw police cars
and a speeding pick-up truck traveling toward her. As the truck passed K.B., she noticed
the driver looking in her direction and then heard a “loud noise hitting the car.” Officer
Barland met with K.B. that day and observed scratches on the windshield and “rubber
3 scuff mark[s]” on the hood of her car. He thought that this damage was consistent with
the car having recently been struck by the firearm that Dobson threw out the truck’s
window.
Later in the day, another neighborhood resident, M.J., reported to the police that
he found a .38 revolver during his morning walk that day near the intersection of 90th
Street and Vincent Avenue South. This location is where K.B.’s car was struck by an
object.
In viewing two of the squad videos taken during the pursuit, the officers saw that,
immediately after J.L. and J.S. left the truck after it pulled over, Dobson threw a small
object out of the passenger window. The officers determined that it was the bag of
methamphetamine that they recovered on the ground outside of the truck.
On September 27, 2012, the state charged Dobson with the crimes of prohibited
person in possession of a firearm, fleeing a peace officer in a motor vehicle, and fifth-
degree possession of a controlled substance. See Minn. Stat. §§ 152.025, subd. 2(a)(1),
609.487, subd. 3, 624.713, subds. 1(2), 2(b) (2010).
A jury trial ensued. The state’s witnesses included J.S.; officers from the
Bloomington Police Department; the witness who found the gun; the witness whose car
was damaged; and two forensic scientists from the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension.
The district court admitted the squad car video recordings from the morning of the
offenses. The state presented forensic evidence that Dobson’s DNA was the predominant
profile on the gun’s trigger. Dobson did not testify.
The jury found Dobson guilty of all three counts. This appeal followed.
4 DECISION
I. Prosecutorial Misconduct
Dobson asserts that the prosecutor erred when she told the jury during closing
argument that he sold methamphetamine because Dobson was not charged with selling
drugs and the statements were not supported by the record. Because Dobson did not
object to the alleged misconduct at trial, we review under a modified plain-error standard.
See State v. Ramey, 721 N.W.2d 294, 302 (Minn. 2006). Under this standard, Dobson
must show that error occurred and that it was plain. Id. If Dobson shows plain error, the
burden shifts to the state to show that the error did not affect the defendant’s substantial
rights. Id.
A prosecutor’s actions may be misconduct if they have the effect of materially
undermining the fairness of a trial or if they violate “clear or established standards of
conduct, e.g., rules, laws, orders by a district court, or clear commands in this state’s case
law.” State v. Fields, 730 N.W.2d 777, 782 (Minn. 2007). A prosecutor may not make
statements in closing arguments that do not have support in the trial record. State v.
Kirvelay, 311 Minn. 201, 202, 248 N.W.2d 310, 311 (1976). Prosecutors must also
“avoid inflaming the jury’s passions and prejudices against the defendant.” State v.
Porter, 526 N.W.2d 359, 363 (Minn. 1995).
Prosecutors may, however, “state conclusions and inferences which the human
mind may reasonably draw from the facts in evidence.” State v. Swaney, 787 N.W.2d
541, 561 (Minn. 2010) (quotation omitted); see State v. Van Keuren, 759 N.W.2d 36, 43
(Minn. 2008) (“[C]ounsel may use all legitimate arguments on the evidence, to analyze
5 and explain the evidence, and to present all proper inferences to be drawn therefrom
during closing argument.” (quotation omitted)). “When evaluating alleged misconduct, a
court will look at the closing argument as a whole.” State v. Swanson, 707 N.W.2d 645,
656 (Minn. 2006).
In her closing argument, the prosecutor referred to testimony from trial when she
stated that Dobson “sold meth to [J.L.]” and “had a little baggie packaged for sale.”
These statements were not misconduct. An inference that Dobson sold
methamphetamine may be reasonably drawn from the evidence. J.S. testified that J.L.
received methamphetamine from Dobson and that Dobson provided all of the
methamphetamine at the motel. Officer Spencer Saari testified that the
methamphetamine that Dobson possessed was packaged in a baggie, and he responded
affirmatively to the state’s question of whether “when people sell methamphetamines
they sell it in these small bags.” The prosecutor argued that J.S. and Officer Saari’s
testimony supported the conclusion that the methamphetamine seized near the truck
belonged to Dobson.
We do not agree with Dobson that the prosecutor’s three references to selling
drugs “emphasiz[ed]” that Dobson was an “unsavory and criminal character.” Rather, the
prosecutor’s lengthy closing argument focused on the charges—possession of drugs,
fleeing the police, and prohibited person in possession—and the evidence that related to
those charges. By referring twice to one purported drug sale and stating that Dobson
possessed drugs “packaged for sale,” the prosecutor did not emphasize that Dobson was
an alleged drug dealer. Nor did she ever call him a “drug dealer.” And the prosecutor
6 did not mention any drug sales in her rebuttal argument. Viewing the closing argument
as a whole, no plain error occurred here.
II. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
In his supplemental pro se brief, Dobson contends that his trial counsel was
ineffective. We review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo. Dobbins v.
State, 788 N.W.2d 719, 728 (Minn. 2010).
Defendants are guaranteed the right to effective assistance of counsel. U.S. Const.
amend. VI; Minn. Const. art. I, § 6. To show that he did not receive effective assistance,
Dobson must demonstrate “that (1) his counsel’s performance fell below an objective
standard of reasonableness, and (2) that a reasonable probability exists that, but for his
counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different.”
State v. Nissalke, 801 N.W.2d 82, 111 (Minn. 2011) (quotation omitted). Objective
reasonableness is “representation by an attorney exercising the customary skills and
diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar
circumstances.” Opsahl v. State, 677 N.W.2d 414, 421 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).
Specifically, Dobson asserts that his trial counsel should have called J.L. as a
witness, disputed the admissibility of the DNA evidence by requesting a Frye-Mack
hearing, and called an expert witness to testify about the DNA evidence. These decisions
by Dobson’s trial counsel are ones of trial strategy, and we do not review those
challenges. See Dobbins, 788 N.W.2d at 731. “[D]ecisions to present certain evidence
and call certain witnesses at trial are tactical decisions properly left to the discretion of
7 trial counsel, and such decisions do not prove that counsel’s performance fell below an
objective standard of reasonableness.” Nissalke, 801 N.W.2d at 111 (quotation omitted).
Moreover, Dobson does not explain how testimony from J.L. would have led the
jury not to convict him, other than claiming that J.L. had a motive not to possess a gun
because he was also prohibited from doing so. But evidence that J.L. may have also
possessed the gun does not prove that Dobson did not possess it. And the evidence that
Dobson possessed the gun was not entirely circumstantial, as he claims. Rather, the state
introduced direct evidence of his possession—J.S. testified that she saw Dobson with the
gun and saw him throw it out of the truck window. See State v. Clark, 739 N.W.2d 412,
421 n.4 (Minn. 2007).
In addition, counsel’s decision to consult a DNA expert before trial was
reasonable in trying to best defend his client. See State v. Beecroft, 813 N.W.2d 814, 839
(Minn. 2012) (“[I]f factfinders are exposed to the opinions of the government’s expert
witnesses, a defendant must have an equal opportunity to present to the factfinders the
opposing views of the defendant’s experts.”). Dobson’s counsel may have consulted this
expert to prepare possible defenses and cross-examination that he then used at trial. The
record shows that trial counsel challenged the DNA evidence at trial in his cross-
examination of the forensic scientist: counsel asked her questions about the size of the
DNA samples, the similarities between M.J. and Dobson’s DNA profiles, the testing
procedures, and the possibility of transfers and other contributors to the mixtures.
Counsel’s decisions not to request a Frye-Mack hearing and not to call the expert at trial
fall squarely within “tactical decisions properly left to the discretion of trial counsel.”
8 See Nissalke, 801 N.W.2d at 111 (quotation omitted) (holding that decision not to file
pretrial motion regarding evidence is trial strategy); Francis v. State, 781 N.W.2d 892,
898 (Minn. 2010) (holding that decision whether to call expert witness is trial strategy).
Because Dobson’s trial counsel exercised “the customary skills and diligence that
a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances,” we
conclude that Dobson did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel. See Opsahl, 677
N.W.2d at 421 (quotation omitted); see also Nissalke, 801 N.W.2d at 111 (“We need not
address both the performance and prejudice prongs if one is determinative.” (quotation
omitted)).
Affirmed.