This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A15-0130
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
vs.
Ronald Wayne Elias Thompson, Appellant.
Filed November 23, 2015 Affirmed Stauber, Judge
Becker County District Court File No. 03-CR-14-1084
Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Sara J. Euteneuer, Assistant State Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, James B. Early, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and
Gretchen D. Thilmony, Becker County Attorney, Detroit Lakes, Minnesota (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Stauber, Presiding Judge; Kirk, Judge; and Smith,
Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
STAUBER, Judge
On appeal from his conviction of failing to register a secondary address, appellant
argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm. FACTS
Beginning in 2008, appellant Ronald Thompson was required to register as a
predatory offender. Several years later, in May 2014, appellant was charged with one
count of violation of the predatory offender registration requirements under Minn. Stat.
§ 243.166, subd. 5(a) (2012), for failing to provide notice of a change in his primary
address from January 21, 2014, through April 24, 2014. The state later added a second
count of violation of the predatory offender registration requirements under Minn. Stat.
§ 243.166, subd. 5(a), for failing to register a secondary address.
At trial, evidence was presented establishing that in April 2013, appellant
informed the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) that he would be residing at his
father’s house in White Earth beginning June 1, 2013. The change of information form
listed his father’s house as the primary address and did not list a secondary address.
On January 21, 2014, White Earth Police Officer Neal Warren performed a
compliance check on appellant at his father’s home in White Earth. Officer Warren
arrived at the residence at 11:13 a.m., but appellant was not present. Instead, Officer
Warren spoke with appellant’s father, Ronald Thompson, Sr. (Thompson), who stated
that appellant had been in Naytahwaush for the past week staying with an aunt but that he
“was supposed to be home any day.”
Officer Warren returned to appellant’s father’s home for another compliance
check on April 23, 2014. Officer Warren knocked on the door at about 7:15 p.m., but no
one answered. Officer Warren then returned to that address the next day at about 7:20
p.m. and spoke with Thompson. Officer Warren testified that Thompson told him that
2 appellant “was staying out at his aunt[’s] . . . residence in Naytahwaush.” Officer Warren
also testified that Thompson gave no indication that appellant “had been home between”
January and April of 2014.
Thompson testified that appellant had been living at his house “for about three
years,” that appellant stayed at the house “most of the time,” but that appellant would
sometimes stay overnight at his girlfriend’s house. Thompson also admitted that on
January 21, 2014, he told Officer Warren that appellant stayed at his house “off and on.”
Appellant testified that he began living with his father in White Earth in 2012.
According to appellant, his girlfriend lives across the street but he never stays overnight
at her house because he is a convicted felon and his girlfriend is under a contract that
prohibits felons from residing in her housing complex. Appellant also claimed that the
only time he stayed overnight at someplace other than his father’s house between January
2014 and April 2014, was the “two and a half nights” he stayed with his aunt in
Naytahwaush in January 2014.
A jury found appellant guilty of the charged offenses. The district court entered a
conviction on count two of the complaint, failing to register a secondary address, but did
not adjudicate appellant guilty of count one. The district court then granted appellant’s
request for a dispositional departure, stayed execution of appellant’s presumptive 24-
month sentence, and placed appellant on probation. This appeal followed.
DECISION
Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s verdict
with respect to both counts in the complaint. When reviewing a claim of insufficient
3 evidence to support a conviction, this court conducts “a painstaking analysis of the record
to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the
conviction, was sufficient” to support a conviction. State v. Ortega, 813 N.W.2d 86, 100
(Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted). In undertaking this analysis, we assume that the jury
disbelieved any testimony conflicting with that conviction. State v. Palmer, 803 N.W.2d
727, 733 (Minn. 2011). We “will not disturb the verdict if the jury, acting with due
regard for the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a
reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the charged
offense.” Ortega, 813 N.W.2d at 100.
A person who is required to register under the statute must register with the
corrections agent or law-enforcement authority the person’s primary address and “all of
the person’s secondary addresses in Minnesota.” Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 4(a)(1)-(2)
(2012). Primary address is defined as “the mailing address of the person’s
dwelling.” Id., subd. 1a(g) (2012). A secondary address is “where the person regularly
or occasionally stays overnight when not staying at the person’s primary
address.” Id., subd. 1a(i) (2012).
Appellant argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction of
failing to register a secondary address. In making this argument, appellant claims that the
circumstantial-evidence standard of review applies because “the state’s case was based
entirely on circumstantial evidence.” The state disagrees, arguing that there is direct
evidence of appellant’s guilt and, therefore, the traditional standard of review for
sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges is applicable.
4 To determine whether to apply the traditional standard of review or the
circumstantial-evidence standard of review, we ask whether the state’s direct evidence is
sufficient to prove each element of the crime. See, e.g., State v. Flowers, 788 N.W.2d
120, 133 n.2 (Minn. 2010). If the state’s direct evidence, by itself, is sufficient to prove
each element of the charged offense, we apply the traditional standard of review; but if
the state’s direct evidence, by itself, is insufficient to prove each element of the charged
offense, and the state also relies on circumstantial evidence to prove one or more
elements, the circumstantial-evidence standard of review is applicable. State v. Porte,
832 N.W.2d 303, 309 (Minn. App. 2013) (applying circumstantial-evidence standard of
review because state introduced insufficient direct evidence of possession of requisite
amount of controlled substance); see also State v. Salyers, 858 N.W.2d 156, 161 (Minn.
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 (2014).
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A15-0130
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
vs.
Ronald Wayne Elias Thompson, Appellant.
Filed November 23, 2015 Affirmed Stauber, Judge
Becker County District Court File No. 03-CR-14-1084
Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Sara J. Euteneuer, Assistant State Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, James B. Early, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and
Gretchen D. Thilmony, Becker County Attorney, Detroit Lakes, Minnesota (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Stauber, Presiding Judge; Kirk, Judge; and Smith,
Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
STAUBER, Judge
On appeal from his conviction of failing to register a secondary address, appellant
argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm. FACTS
Beginning in 2008, appellant Ronald Thompson was required to register as a
predatory offender. Several years later, in May 2014, appellant was charged with one
count of violation of the predatory offender registration requirements under Minn. Stat.
§ 243.166, subd. 5(a) (2012), for failing to provide notice of a change in his primary
address from January 21, 2014, through April 24, 2014. The state later added a second
count of violation of the predatory offender registration requirements under Minn. Stat.
§ 243.166, subd. 5(a), for failing to register a secondary address.
At trial, evidence was presented establishing that in April 2013, appellant
informed the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) that he would be residing at his
father’s house in White Earth beginning June 1, 2013. The change of information form
listed his father’s house as the primary address and did not list a secondary address.
On January 21, 2014, White Earth Police Officer Neal Warren performed a
compliance check on appellant at his father’s home in White Earth. Officer Warren
arrived at the residence at 11:13 a.m., but appellant was not present. Instead, Officer
Warren spoke with appellant’s father, Ronald Thompson, Sr. (Thompson), who stated
that appellant had been in Naytahwaush for the past week staying with an aunt but that he
“was supposed to be home any day.”
Officer Warren returned to appellant’s father’s home for another compliance
check on April 23, 2014. Officer Warren knocked on the door at about 7:15 p.m., but no
one answered. Officer Warren then returned to that address the next day at about 7:20
p.m. and spoke with Thompson. Officer Warren testified that Thompson told him that
2 appellant “was staying out at his aunt[’s] . . . residence in Naytahwaush.” Officer Warren
also testified that Thompson gave no indication that appellant “had been home between”
January and April of 2014.
Thompson testified that appellant had been living at his house “for about three
years,” that appellant stayed at the house “most of the time,” but that appellant would
sometimes stay overnight at his girlfriend’s house. Thompson also admitted that on
January 21, 2014, he told Officer Warren that appellant stayed at his house “off and on.”
Appellant testified that he began living with his father in White Earth in 2012.
According to appellant, his girlfriend lives across the street but he never stays overnight
at her house because he is a convicted felon and his girlfriend is under a contract that
prohibits felons from residing in her housing complex. Appellant also claimed that the
only time he stayed overnight at someplace other than his father’s house between January
2014 and April 2014, was the “two and a half nights” he stayed with his aunt in
Naytahwaush in January 2014.
A jury found appellant guilty of the charged offenses. The district court entered a
conviction on count two of the complaint, failing to register a secondary address, but did
not adjudicate appellant guilty of count one. The district court then granted appellant’s
request for a dispositional departure, stayed execution of appellant’s presumptive 24-
month sentence, and placed appellant on probation. This appeal followed.
DECISION
Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s verdict
with respect to both counts in the complaint. When reviewing a claim of insufficient
3 evidence to support a conviction, this court conducts “a painstaking analysis of the record
to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the
conviction, was sufficient” to support a conviction. State v. Ortega, 813 N.W.2d 86, 100
(Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted). In undertaking this analysis, we assume that the jury
disbelieved any testimony conflicting with that conviction. State v. Palmer, 803 N.W.2d
727, 733 (Minn. 2011). We “will not disturb the verdict if the jury, acting with due
regard for the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a
reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the charged
offense.” Ortega, 813 N.W.2d at 100.
A person who is required to register under the statute must register with the
corrections agent or law-enforcement authority the person’s primary address and “all of
the person’s secondary addresses in Minnesota.” Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 4(a)(1)-(2)
(2012). Primary address is defined as “the mailing address of the person’s
dwelling.” Id., subd. 1a(g) (2012). A secondary address is “where the person regularly
or occasionally stays overnight when not staying at the person’s primary
address.” Id., subd. 1a(i) (2012).
Appellant argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction of
failing to register a secondary address. In making this argument, appellant claims that the
circumstantial-evidence standard of review applies because “the state’s case was based
entirely on circumstantial evidence.” The state disagrees, arguing that there is direct
evidence of appellant’s guilt and, therefore, the traditional standard of review for
sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges is applicable.
4 To determine whether to apply the traditional standard of review or the
circumstantial-evidence standard of review, we ask whether the state’s direct evidence is
sufficient to prove each element of the crime. See, e.g., State v. Flowers, 788 N.W.2d
120, 133 n.2 (Minn. 2010). If the state’s direct evidence, by itself, is sufficient to prove
each element of the charged offense, we apply the traditional standard of review; but if
the state’s direct evidence, by itself, is insufficient to prove each element of the charged
offense, and the state also relies on circumstantial evidence to prove one or more
elements, the circumstantial-evidence standard of review is applicable. State v. Porte,
832 N.W.2d 303, 309 (Minn. App. 2013) (applying circumstantial-evidence standard of
review because state introduced insufficient direct evidence of possession of requisite
amount of controlled substance); see also State v. Salyers, 858 N.W.2d 156, 161 (Minn.
2015) (applying traditional standard of review because state introduced sufficient direct
evidence of possession of firearm). Direct evidence is “‘evidence that is based on
personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or
presumption,’” while circumstantial evidence is “‘evidence based on inference and not on
personal knowledge or observation.’” Bernhardt v. State, 684 N.W.2d 465, 477 n.11
(Minn. 2004) (alterations omitted) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 595–96 (8th ed.
2004)).
To prove that appellant failed to register as a predatory offender, the state had to
establish the following four elements: (1) that appellant is a person required to register as
a predatory offender; (2) that appellant knowingly violated any registration requirement;
(3) that “the time period during which [appellant] is required to register has not elapsed”;
5 and (4) that his failure to register occurred on the date and in the county alleged. 10
Minnesota Practice, CRIMJIG 12.102 (2006). One of the registration requirements is
that appellant “provide to the corrections agent . . . all of [his] secondary addresses in
Minnesota.” Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 4a(a)(2).
The only element contested by appellant is that he knowingly violated a
registration requirement. And more specifically, appellant argues that the state failed to
present any direct evidence that he had a secondary address. We disagree. A secondary
address is a place “where the person . . . occasionally stays overnight when not staying at
the person’s primary address.” Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 1a(i) (emphasis added).
Here, Thompson testified that appellant stayed at his girlfriend’s house “overnight” “once
[or] twice a week.” This testimony is direct evidence that appellant had a secondary
address. See Bernhardt, 684 N.W.2d at 477 n.11. We therefore apply the traditional
standard of review.
Appellant argues that the “testimony and evidence presented by the state regarding
a secondary address was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was
indeed a place where [he] “‘regularly or occasionally stayed overnight.’” But as stated
previously, Thompson testified that appellant stayed at his girlfriend’s house “overnight”
“once [or] twice a week.” If believed, this testimony establishes that appellant had a
secondary address. Although appellant testified that he never stayed overnight at his
girlfriend’s house, the jury by its verdict disbelieved appellant’s testimony and found
Thompson’s testimony to be credible. It is well settled that the jury is the ultimate judge
of credibility, and we defer to that determination. See State v. Mems, 708 N.W.2d 526,
6 531 (Minn. 2006). Moreover, Officer Warren testified that when he performed the
compliance check on appellant on January 21, 2014, Thompson told him that appellant
had been staying at his aunt’s house in Naytahwaush for the past week. Officer Warren
also testified that when he returned to Thompson’s house on April 24, 2014, to conduct
another compliance check, he was told by Thompson that appellant was again staying at
his aunt’s house in Naytahwaush. Officer Warren’s testimony established that, in
addition to his girlfriend’s house, appellant’s aunt’s house constituted another secondary
address.
Finally, the annual verification forms offered by the state and admitted into
evidence listed Thompson’s house as appellant’s primary address and did not list a
secondary address. The evidence presented by the state establishes that appellant
knowingly violated the registration requirements by failing to provide the BCA with his
secondary addresses. Accordingly, there is sufficient evidence to sustain appellant’s
conviction of failing to register a secondary address. And because there is sufficient
evidence to support appellant’s conviction of failing to register a secondary address, we
need not address appellant’s claim that there was insufficient evidence to support the
jury’s finding that appellant was guilty of failing to provide notice of a change in his
primary address between January 21, 2014 through April 24, 2014. See State v. Hurd,
819 N.W.2d 591, 602 n.1 (Minn. 2012) (stating that appellate courts may decline to
address an appellant’s argument regarding an offense for which no conviction was
entered).
Affirmed.