In the Matter of the Welfare of: T. S. G. B., Child. ( 2014 )

This opinion will be unpublished and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
A14-1137
In the Matter of the Welfare of: T. S. G. B., Child
Filed December 29, 2014
Affirmed
Hudson, Judge
Dissenting, Stoneburner, Judge
Cottonwood County District Court
File No. 17-JV-14-32
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and
Nicholas A. Anderson, Cottonwood County Attorney, Windom, Minnesota (for
respondent)
Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Susan Andrews, Assistant
Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Hudson, Presiding Judge; Larkin, Judge; and
Stoneburner, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
HUDSON, Judge
Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting two delinquency
adjudications of fifth-degree assault. Because the circumstances proven are inconsistent
with any rational hypothesis other than guilt, we affirm.

Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
FACTS
On April 25, 2014, appellant T.S.G.B. was living with his grandmother and
attending school in Windom. Because of incidents that had occurred during the previous
week, appellant’s grandmother had arranged for him to receive respite care for a weekend
at Southwestern Youth Services in Magnolia. Appellant’s social worker was to escort
him to Magnolia after school and appellant was to return to his grandmother’s home that
Sunday. Because the social worker believed that appellant would be upset by the news,
she asked a Windom police officer to accompany her when she met with him.
Appellant spoke with the social worker in a school administrator’s office. The
social worker informed appellant of the decision for him to receive respite care in
Magnolia. In response, appellant stood up and attempted to leave; the police officer
grabbed his arm and ordered him to sit down. Appellant reacted badly to the news; he
became belligerent, “balled up” his fists, and told his social worker that he “was not
going.” The social worker attempted to explain the circumstances that required appellant
to spend the weekend in Magnolia. Appellant interrupted her several times, stating “No,
I am not going,” and “That’s b-llsh-t.” He also slammed his fist into his hand. Appellant
then looked at the social worker and told her “I will get another assault charge on both of
you.” The social worker indicated that appellant’s actions caused her fear; she testified
that she had formulated a plan about how she would protect herself if appellant attacked
her.
Appellant continued to strike his hand with his fist as he argued with the social
worker and police officer. Eventually, the police officer told appellant that, “Today, you
2
are going to Magnolia.” Appellant responded, “Watch me; I’ll get another assault
charge.” The police officer asked appellant how he intended to accomplish that;
appellant replied, “You’ll see.” The officer then asked appellant if he was threatening
them; appellant responded “no.” Appellant continued to argue with both individuals;
shortly thereafter, the officer attempted to take appellant’s backpack from him. Appellant
then stood up, clenched his teeth, and stood face-to-face to the officer, who believed,
based upon her experience and training, that appellant was “ready for a fight.” Appellant
asked the officer, “What do you think you’re going to do, b-tch?” Appellant then fled
from the school.
Appellant was charged with two counts of felony-level fifth-degree assault and
one count of misdemeanor fleeing a police officer. Following trial, the district court
found that the state had proved all allegations beyond a reasonable doubt and adjudicated
appellant delinquent on all counts. This appeal follows.
DECISION
Appellant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his delinquency
adjudications, asserting that the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he
intended to cause fear in the social worker or the police officer. In reviewing a claim of
insufficient evidence in a delinquency proceeding, we assess whether the record and the
legitimate inferences drawn from it reasonably support the factfinder’s conclusion that
the appellant committed the charged offense. In re Welfare of J.R.M., 653 N.W.2d 207,
210 (Minn. App. 2002). We assume that the fact-finder believed the state’s witnesses
and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary. In re Welfare of T.N.Y., 632 N.W.2d 765,
3
768 (Minn. App. 2001). The same standard applies in both bench and jury trials. In re
Welfare of M.E.M., 674 N.W.2d 208, 215 (Minn. App. 2004).
To prove that appellant committed the offense of fifth-degree assault, intent-fear,
the state must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant committed “an act with
intent to cause fear in another of immediate bodily harm or death.” Minn. Stat.
§ 609.224, subd. 1(1) (2012). Generally, intent is established by circumstantial evidence.
State v. Smith, 825 N.W.2d 131, 136 (Minn. App. 2012), review denied (Minn. Mar. 19,
2013). We apply a two-step analysis in reviewing a conviction based upon circumstantial
evidence. State v. Silvernail, 831 N.W.2d 594, 598 (Minn. 2013). First, we identify the
circumstances proved, deferring to the jury’s acceptance or rejection of evidence in
support of those circumstances. State v. Hanson, 800 N.W.2d 618, 622 (Minn. 2011).
Second, we examine independently the reasonable inferences that could be drawn from
the circumstances. Id. To uphold appellant’s adjudications, the circumstances proved
must be consistent with the reasonable inference that appellant is guilty and inconsistent
with any other rational inferences. Id.
Here, the district court found that the state proved the following circumstances
relevant to both assault charges: (1) that appellant was angry, argumentative, and hostile;
(2) that he threatened each individual by telling them that he “was going to get another
assault charge ‘on both;’” and (3) that he repeatedly and loudly slammed his “clenched
fist” into his other hand. The district court found, relevant to the assault charge against
the police officer, that appellant “stood face-to-face with [the officer], with clenched teeth
and clenched fists, saying ‘What do you think you are going to do, b-tch?’” The district
4
court also found, relevant to the assault charge against the social worker, that appellant
“said loudly, in a threatening manner, ‘I’m not going, period!’ and slammed his clenched
fist into his other hand” as he stared at the social worker. It is reasonable to infer from
these circumstances that appellant intended to cause fear in both individuals.
Appellant maintains the evidence supports a rational hypothesis inconsistent with
guilt; he asserts that the proven circumstances demonstrate only that he was “venting his
spleen.” Appellant alleges that the district court overlooked important evidence in
support of this hypothesis. He argues that he remained seated during the entire
confrontation, that he framed his statement that he would “get another assault charge” in
the future tense, and that he told the officer that he was not threatening either individual.
Appellant also maintains that he never “directed any physical action” toward either the
social worker or police officer.
But we may consider only the circumstances proved when evaluating the
sufficiency of circumstantial evidence. Hanson, 800 N.W.2d at 622. Here, the district
court found that appellant “stood up, clenched his teeth . . . and stood face to face with
[the officer];” the district court also found that the manner in which appellant struck his
hand with his fist “was clearly directed at [the social worker].” These findings contradict
two of the assertions that appellant offers in support in his proffered inference: (1) that
appellant remained seated during the entire encounter; and (2) that he did not direct
physical action toward either individual. The district court’s findings are well-supported
by the testimony and are not clearly erroneous. We therefore decline to consider these
assertions in evaluating the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence.
5
Considering the circumstances proved, appellant’s initial reaction is consistent
with his assertion that he was angry and frustrated by the news that he would receive
respite care in Magnolia. But appellant’s subsequent conduct, which escalates beyond
general belligerence, is inconsistent with that of someone whose intention is merely to
“vent his spleen.” Appellant told the social worker and police officer that he would get
“another assault charge ‘on both of them.’” He yelled at the police officer through
clenched teeth and repeatedly slammed his fist into his hand. His conduct caused the
police officer to believe that appellant was angry, aggressive, and “ready for a fight.”
The circumstances are reasonably consistent only with an intent to cause fear of bodily
harm and thus inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except guilt. We therefore
conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support appellant’s adjudications of assault in
the fifth degree.
Affirmed.
6
STONEBURNER, Judge (dissenting)
I respectfully dissent because I agree with appellant that the evidence is
insufficient to support a finding that, beyond a reasonable doubt, he committed an act
with intent to cause fear of immediate bodily harm or death.
T.S.G.B. was put in a situation that, as all involved adults recognized, was
guaranteed to trigger an angry response. The adults involved were prepared for such a
response, and T.S.G.B. did not disappoint them. But, to his credit, T.S.G.B. limited his
response to verbalizing just how angry he was and demonstrating that anger by clenching
his fists and then pounding his fist into his own hand several times. T.S.G.B. predicted
that he would “get another assault charge on both of you” if he was forced to immediately
go to a juvenile facility. When he was asked if he was making a threat against either of
the adults confronting him, T.S.G.B. said “No . . . it might sound like [a threat] but it’s
not.” When the police officer involved grabbed his bag, T.S.G.B. stood face to face with
her with his teeth and fists clenched, but he did not assault anyone: he ran out of the room
and was later found standing in the street smoking a cigarette. He was taken into custody
without incident.
For this display of understandable and predictable anger, T.S.G.B, an already
troubled teenager, was charged with two counts of assault, specifically “commit[ting] an
act with intent to cause fear in another of immediate bodily harm or death,” in violation
of Minn. Stat. § 609.224, subd. 1(1) (2012). Because of his prior offending history, these
are felony charges. See Minn. Stat. § 609.224, subd. 4(a). The state had to prove that
T.S.G.B. committed an act “with intent to cause fear in another of immediate bodily harm
D-1
or death.” Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 10(1) (2012) (emphasis added). But the evidence
in this case is that T.S.G.B. threatened only to commit a future assault and committed no
act, physical or verbal, that threatened immediate bodily harm.
“Whether a defendant’s conduct is prohibited by the statute he is charged under is
an issue of statutory interpretation that this court reviews de novo.” State v. Smith, 825
N.W.2d 131, 136 (citing State v. Colvin, 645 N.W.2d 449, 452 (Minn. 2002)). I would
hold that T.S.G.B.’s bad behavior, as a matter of law, is not the conduct prohibited by
Minn. Stat. § 609.224, subd. 1(1), because all of his verbal threats related to future acts,
and he never attempted to strike or push or otherwise make physical contact with either
of the adults involved.
Furthermore, even under the analysis of the majority opinion, I would conclude
that given all of the circumstances proved, the state failed to prove intent to commit
immediate bodily harm beyond a reasonable doubt. I concede that the inference of intent
drawn by the district court is not unreasonable, but equally reasonable is T.S.G.B.’s
argument that he was “venting his spleen” rather than communicating an immediate
threat of bodily harm. The circumstances found are plainly set out in the district court’s
order. The district court found that: (a) T.S.G.B. “was angry, argumentative, loud, and
hostile during the entire encounter”; (b) T.S.G.B. made threats “saying he was going to
get another assault charge ‘on both of them’” (emphasis added); (c) T.S.G.B. “repeatedly
and loudly slammed his clenched fist into his other hand during the encounter” (emphasis
added); and (d) T.S.G.B. “stood up face-to-face [with the police officer] with clenched
teeth and clenched fists saying, ‘What do you think you are going to do, b-tch?’” I
D-2
submit that these circumstances do not constitute conduct that supports only a conclusion
of intent to commit immediate bodily harm and do reasonably lead to a conclusion that
this troubled, frustrated, angry teenager was doing his best in bad circumstances to
restrain himself from assault, while plainly communicating his fear (and threat) that he
would not be able to restrain himself if they forced him to go to the juvenile facility.
T.S.G.B. may be guilty of threats, but I would conclude that he is not guilty of the assault
charges that were brought.
I also lament the lack of effective tools and resources in our juvenile justice
system that lead to situations and outcomes like this one, resulting in yet another troubled
youth being burdened with a felony adjudication, which appears to me to be a
consequence that is out of proportion to the actual events.
D-3