This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn.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 A13-2360
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
vs.
Lue Yang, Appellant.
Filed November 24, 2014 Affirmed Johnson, Judge
Ramsey County District Court File No. 62-CR-13-2131
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and
John J. Choi, Ramsey County Attorney, Peter Marker, Assistant County Attorney, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent)
Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Davi E. Axelson, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Hooten, Presiding Judge; Connolly, Judge; and
Johnson, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
JOHNSON, Judge
A Ramsey County jury found Lue Yang guilty of fifth-degree controlled substance
crime and possession of burglary or theft tools. Yang argues that the district court erred by admitting inadmissible character evidence. We conclude that the district court did not
plainly err by not excluding the testimony of a police officer explaining the reasons why
he investigated Yang. Therefore, we affirm.
FACTS
Shortly after midnight on October 4, 2012, Yang was riding his bicycle on a
sidewalk in a residential neighborhood of St. Paul. He was wearing dark clothing and a
backpack, and his bicycle did not have a light or reflectors. St. Paul Police Officers
Cohlman Rutschow and Robert Lokhorst saw Yang while their squad car was traveling in
the opposite direction. They made a U-turn so that they could stop Yang, conduct a brief
investigation, and inform him that he needed a headlight on his bicycle. After the U-turn,
Yang was traveling in the same direction as the squad car on its right side. Officer
Lokhorst, the passenger, called out for Yang to stop. Yang sped up. Officer Lokhorst
saw Yang pull something out of his jacket pocket and move his hand downward as if to
drop it on the ground. As Yang did so, he swerved and almost lost control of his bicycle.
At about the same time, Officer Lokhorst heard an item hit the ground. Yang continued
for approximately 30 feet and then stopped.
After Yang stopped, Officer Rutschow exited the squad car and approached Yang
to speak with him, while Officer Lokhorst went to the location where he believed Yang
had dropped something. At that spot, Officer Lokhorst found a glass pipe wrapped in a
blue napkin. Officer Lokhorst noticed that the pipe contained a substance that appeared
to be, and later tested positive for, methamphetamine. Meanwhile, Officer Rutschow
asked Yang for identification and pat-searched him for weapons. After Officer Lokhorst
2 found the pipe, the officers arrested Yang for possession of methamphetamine and,
incident to the arrest, searched his backpack. In the backpack, the officers found a wire
cutter, a screwdriver, and a window punch (a tool approximately three to four inches long
with a pointed end that is used for breaking windows quickly and quietly). Officer
Lokhorst testified at trial that the tools found in Yang’s backpack may be used, and often
are used, for burglarizing and stealing automobiles.
At trial, Yang testified that he continued riding when Officer Lokhorst called for
him to stop because he did not realize that the officer was speaking to him. Yang
testified that he swerved because he turned his body to the side when he realized that
Officer Lokhorst was speaking to him, and he denied dropping anything on the ground.
Yang testified that he had the wire cutter and screwdriver in his backpack because he had
been working on a friend’s car all day. He testified that he did not remember putting the
window punch in his backpack and must have picked it up inadvertently when he was
gathering up the other tools that he used when working on the car. Yang testified that he
wore dark clothing to mask any grease stains from working on the car.
In March 2013, the state charged Yang with one count of fifth-degree possession
of a controlled substance, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 152.025, subd. 2(a)(1) (2012). In
August 2013, the state amended the complaint to add a charge of possession of burglary
or theft tools, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.59 (2012).
The case was tried to a jury on two days in August 2013. Officer Rutschow and
Officer Lokhorst testified for the state. When the prosecutor asked Officer Rutschow
why he pat-searched Yang for weapons, he responded by testifying as follows:
3 Given the area that -- with high crime and burglaries and thefts, he was wearing dark clothing at the time around a dark area. He had a backpack on at the time riding a bike, which all those -- all those things are indicators for us that are typical with people that commit crimes such as burglaries and thefts from autos.
Yang’s trial attorney did not object to the prosecutor’s question or Officer Rutschow’s
answer. A short time later, the prosecutor asked Officer Rutschow about Officer
Lokhorst’s actions after they stopped Yang. Officer Rutschow responded by testifying as
follows:
Officer Lokhorst was off to my right kind of around the area where he had passed by that car, because our suspicion was that, you know, going past the car maybe he ditched something along the way as has happened with us with other suspects before. They try to hide around something and maybe toss something underneath a car trying to hide it from us.
Yang’s trial attorney did not object to the prosecutor’s question or Officer Rutschow’s
answer.
The jury found Yang guilty of both charges. In September 2013, the district court
stayed imposition of sentence and placed Yang on probation for five years. Yang
appeals.
DECISION
Yang argues that the district court erred by admitting the two portions of Officer
Rutschow’s testimony that are excerpted above. Yang contends that the challenged
evidence is inadmissible character evidence.
4 Because Yang did not object to the challenged testimony at trial, this court reviews
only for plain error. See Minn. R. Crim. P. 31.02. Under the plain-error test, an appellant
is not entitled to relief on an issue to which no objection was made at trial unless (1) there
is an error, (2) the error is plain, and (3) the error affects the appellant’s substantial rights.
State v. Griller, 583 N.W.2d 736, 740 (Minn. 1998). If the first three requirements of the
plain-error test are satisfied, this court must consider the fourth requirement, whether the
error “seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial
proceedings.” State v. Washington, 693 N.W.2d 195, 204 (Minn. 2005) (quotation
omitted). If this court concludes that any prong of the plain-error test is not satisfied, we
need not consider the other prongs. State v. Brown, 815 N.W.2d 609, 620 (Minn. 2012).
“Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of character” is inadmissible “for the
purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion.” Minn. R.
Evid. 404. The rule is intended to prevent “the danger that a jury will overvalue the
character evidence in assessing the guilt for the crime charged.” State v. Loebach, 310
N.W.2d 58, 63 (Minn. 1981). In State v.
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 A13-2360
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
vs.
Lue Yang, Appellant.
Filed November 24, 2014 Affirmed Johnson, Judge
Ramsey County District Court File No. 62-CR-13-2131
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and
John J. Choi, Ramsey County Attorney, Peter Marker, Assistant County Attorney, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent)
Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Davi E. Axelson, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Hooten, Presiding Judge; Connolly, Judge; and
Johnson, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
JOHNSON, Judge
A Ramsey County jury found Lue Yang guilty of fifth-degree controlled substance
crime and possession of burglary or theft tools. Yang argues that the district court erred by admitting inadmissible character evidence. We conclude that the district court did not
plainly err by not excluding the testimony of a police officer explaining the reasons why
he investigated Yang. Therefore, we affirm.
FACTS
Shortly after midnight on October 4, 2012, Yang was riding his bicycle on a
sidewalk in a residential neighborhood of St. Paul. He was wearing dark clothing and a
backpack, and his bicycle did not have a light or reflectors. St. Paul Police Officers
Cohlman Rutschow and Robert Lokhorst saw Yang while their squad car was traveling in
the opposite direction. They made a U-turn so that they could stop Yang, conduct a brief
investigation, and inform him that he needed a headlight on his bicycle. After the U-turn,
Yang was traveling in the same direction as the squad car on its right side. Officer
Lokhorst, the passenger, called out for Yang to stop. Yang sped up. Officer Lokhorst
saw Yang pull something out of his jacket pocket and move his hand downward as if to
drop it on the ground. As Yang did so, he swerved and almost lost control of his bicycle.
At about the same time, Officer Lokhorst heard an item hit the ground. Yang continued
for approximately 30 feet and then stopped.
After Yang stopped, Officer Rutschow exited the squad car and approached Yang
to speak with him, while Officer Lokhorst went to the location where he believed Yang
had dropped something. At that spot, Officer Lokhorst found a glass pipe wrapped in a
blue napkin. Officer Lokhorst noticed that the pipe contained a substance that appeared
to be, and later tested positive for, methamphetamine. Meanwhile, Officer Rutschow
asked Yang for identification and pat-searched him for weapons. After Officer Lokhorst
2 found the pipe, the officers arrested Yang for possession of methamphetamine and,
incident to the arrest, searched his backpack. In the backpack, the officers found a wire
cutter, a screwdriver, and a window punch (a tool approximately three to four inches long
with a pointed end that is used for breaking windows quickly and quietly). Officer
Lokhorst testified at trial that the tools found in Yang’s backpack may be used, and often
are used, for burglarizing and stealing automobiles.
At trial, Yang testified that he continued riding when Officer Lokhorst called for
him to stop because he did not realize that the officer was speaking to him. Yang
testified that he swerved because he turned his body to the side when he realized that
Officer Lokhorst was speaking to him, and he denied dropping anything on the ground.
Yang testified that he had the wire cutter and screwdriver in his backpack because he had
been working on a friend’s car all day. He testified that he did not remember putting the
window punch in his backpack and must have picked it up inadvertently when he was
gathering up the other tools that he used when working on the car. Yang testified that he
wore dark clothing to mask any grease stains from working on the car.
In March 2013, the state charged Yang with one count of fifth-degree possession
of a controlled substance, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 152.025, subd. 2(a)(1) (2012). In
August 2013, the state amended the complaint to add a charge of possession of burglary
or theft tools, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.59 (2012).
The case was tried to a jury on two days in August 2013. Officer Rutschow and
Officer Lokhorst testified for the state. When the prosecutor asked Officer Rutschow
why he pat-searched Yang for weapons, he responded by testifying as follows:
3 Given the area that -- with high crime and burglaries and thefts, he was wearing dark clothing at the time around a dark area. He had a backpack on at the time riding a bike, which all those -- all those things are indicators for us that are typical with people that commit crimes such as burglaries and thefts from autos.
Yang’s trial attorney did not object to the prosecutor’s question or Officer Rutschow’s
answer. A short time later, the prosecutor asked Officer Rutschow about Officer
Lokhorst’s actions after they stopped Yang. Officer Rutschow responded by testifying as
follows:
Officer Lokhorst was off to my right kind of around the area where he had passed by that car, because our suspicion was that, you know, going past the car maybe he ditched something along the way as has happened with us with other suspects before. They try to hide around something and maybe toss something underneath a car trying to hide it from us.
Yang’s trial attorney did not object to the prosecutor’s question or Officer Rutschow’s
answer.
The jury found Yang guilty of both charges. In September 2013, the district court
stayed imposition of sentence and placed Yang on probation for five years. Yang
appeals.
DECISION
Yang argues that the district court erred by admitting the two portions of Officer
Rutschow’s testimony that are excerpted above. Yang contends that the challenged
evidence is inadmissible character evidence.
4 Because Yang did not object to the challenged testimony at trial, this court reviews
only for plain error. See Minn. R. Crim. P. 31.02. Under the plain-error test, an appellant
is not entitled to relief on an issue to which no objection was made at trial unless (1) there
is an error, (2) the error is plain, and (3) the error affects the appellant’s substantial rights.
State v. Griller, 583 N.W.2d 736, 740 (Minn. 1998). If the first three requirements of the
plain-error test are satisfied, this court must consider the fourth requirement, whether the
error “seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial
proceedings.” State v. Washington, 693 N.W.2d 195, 204 (Minn. 2005) (quotation
omitted). If this court concludes that any prong of the plain-error test is not satisfied, we
need not consider the other prongs. State v. Brown, 815 N.W.2d 609, 620 (Minn. 2012).
“Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of character” is inadmissible “for the
purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion.” Minn. R.
Evid. 404. The rule is intended to prevent “the danger that a jury will overvalue the
character evidence in assessing the guilt for the crime charged.” State v. Loebach, 310
N.W.2d 58, 63 (Minn. 1981). In State v. Williams, 525 N.W.2d 538 (Minn. 1994), the
supreme court held that evidence of a “drug courier profile” (i.e., a composite of certain
behaviors and characteristics common to people who transport drugs) was “clearly and
plainly inadmissible” to prove that the defendant was guilty of possession of cocaine with
intent to sell. Id. at 545, 548. The supreme court noted that such evidence “seems akin to
character evidence” and expressed concern that “the jury was impliedly urged to infer
that since defendant’s conduct fit the profile, she must have known that her luggage
contained crack cocaine.” Id. at 547-48 (quotations omitted). Similarly, in State v.
5 Litzau, 650 N.W.2d 177 (Minn. 2002), the supreme court held that expert testimony
about how drug dealers typically acquire vehicles and transport drugs was “‘plainly
inadmissible.’” Id. at 185 (quoting Williams, 525 N.W.2d at 548). In both Williams and
Litzau, the supreme court reversed the defendants’ convictions and remanded for new
trials not solely because of the admission of drug-profile evidence but, rather, because of
the cumulative effect of multiple trial errors. Litzau, 650 N.W.2d at 187; Williams, 525
N.W.2d at 549.
Yang contends that the excerpted portions of Officer Rutschow’s testimony should
not have been admitted for the same reasons stated in Williams and Litzau. In response,
the state contends that Williams and Litzau are inapplicable because the profile evidence
in those cases was “extensive” and because in this case the state introduced other,
stronger evidence of Yang’s guilt. The state is correct that the challenged evidence in
this case is unlike the evidence that was erroneously admitted in Williams and Litzau.
The supreme court expressed concern in Williams that the state’s drug-profile evidence
was a large part of the state’s proof that the appellant intended to sell the controlled
substances in her possession. 525 N.W.2d at 541, 549. Similarly, in Litzau, it appears
that the expert testimony about the typical behavior of drug dealers was the state’s
primary means of proving that the appellant intended to sell the controlled substances in
his possession. 650 N.W.2d at 185.
In this case, however, the state did not rely heavily, if at all, on the challenged
portions of Officer Rutschow’s testimony. To prove the offense of possession of
burglary or theft tools, the state did not rely heavily on the officer’s testimony about
6 Yang’s dark clothing and backpack to prove that Yang was guilty. The state did not need
to do so because the state introduced evidence that Yang actually possessed tools that
may be used, and often are used, to break into or steal automobiles. To prove the offense
of possession of controlled substances, the state did not rely on the officer’s testimony
about other persons’ attempts to discard or hide controlled substances. The state did not
need to do so because the state introduced evidence that Yang possessed and dropped an
item that was recovered, was tested, and was determined to contain methamphetamine.
In closing argument, the prosecutor asked the jury to infer that Yang possessed
methamphetamine based on the officers’ observations and perceptions of Yang’s
conduct, not Yang’s conformity with a profile. In reality, the challenged portions of
Officer Rutschow’s testimony were relatively insignificant parts of the state’s case and
appear to have been offered only to explain why the officers decided to stop Yang and
conduct a brief investigation. See Litzau, 650 N.W.2d at 182; State v. Cermak, 365
N.W.2d 243, 247 (Minn. 1985).
Because Yang has failed to show that the challenged evidence is inadmissible, he
cannot satisfy the first requirement of the plain-error test. In light of that conclusion, we
need not analyze the other requirements of the plain-error test. Thus, we conclude that
the district court did not plainly error by not sua sponte excluding the challenged portions
of Officer Rutschow’s testimony.
Affirmed.