State of Minnesota v. Nathan Edward Palmer ( 2015 )

This opinion will be unpublished and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
A15-0033
State of Minnesota,
Respondent,
vs.
Nathan Edward Palmer,
Appellant.
Filed November 30, 2015
Affirmed
Cleary, Chief Judge
Chisago County District Court
File No. 13-CR-13-63
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and
Janet Reiter, Chisago County Attorney, Nicholas A. Hydukovich, Assistant County
Attorney, Center City, Minnesota (for respondent)
Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Andrea Barts, Assistant Public
Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Cleary, Chief Judge; Connolly, Judge; and Johnson,
Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
CLEARY, Chief Judge
Appellant Nathan Edward Palmer was convicted after a court trial of felony
domestic assault (harm) in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.2242, subd. 4 (2012) and
malicious punishment of a child-less than substantial bodily harm, a gross misdemeanor,
in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.377, subds. 1, 2 (2012). Appellant argues that the
district court erred in finding that he used unreasonable force when disciplining his child
for behavioral problems. Because a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that appellant
used unreasonable force, we affirm.
FACTS
On January 17, 2013, appellant’s 12-year-old son, N.E.P., was suspended from
school for disrespectful and disruptive behavior. This was not his first suspension from
school. Appellant left work to pick up N.E.P. after the suspension, and the two returned
home. Appellant told N.E.P. to clean his room, but N.E.P. did not, and this angered
appellant. Appellant attempted to physically discipline N.E.P. by spanking him with a
leather belt. Appellant attempted to grab N.E.P. to spank him, but N.E.P. struggled. To
control him, appellant grabbed N.E.P. by the collar of his sweatshirt and pulled at it,
leaving marks around N.E.P.’s neck. Appellant then hit N.E.P. approximately five times
with a leather belt, leaving marks on his legs and back. N.E.P. left the house and went to
the police station, and police transported him to Fairview Lakes Hospital. N.E.P. initially
told doctors that appellant had strangled him, but later stated that he exaggerated that fact
because he was angry at appellant.
2
At trial, evidence was admitted related to the nature and extent of N.E.P.’s
injuries. Nurse Linda Godden, who treated N.E.P. at the hospital, testified that “[h]is
neck and chest had petechiae, which [are] red little arterial breaks.” She stated that
petechiae are caused by things such as “crushing injury, vomiting, [or] pressure.” On
cross-examination, Godden stated that such petechiae could be caused by a person
struggling against being dragged by his shirt. Dr. John Eikens, who also treated N.E.P. at
the hospital, stated that N.E.P. had a petechial rash which indicated pressure was applied
to those areas, and red marks that were consistent with being struck with a belt. The
district court found that appellant “exceeded any reasonable use of his disciplinary
authority . . . when he caused the injuries to N.E.P.’s neck by the use of extreme force,”
and recorded convictions for domestic assault and malicious punishment of a child. This
appeal followed.
DECISION
The district court convicted appellant of domestic assault and malicious
punishment of a child, but sentenced appellant only on the domestic assault conviction.
This court must address a conviction on appeal, even if the defendant receives no
sentence for that conviction. See State v. Cox, 820 N.W.2d 540, 552-53 (Minn. 2012)
(holding that the district court erred in convicting defendant “[e]ven though the court did
not sentence” defendant on that conviction); Spann v. State, 740 N.W.2d 570, 574 (Minn.
2007) (reviewing convictions for lesser-included offenses, for which defendant received
no sentence).
3
Appellant argues that there was insufficient evidence for the district court to find
that he used unreasonable force in disciplining N.E.P. Therefore, appellant argues, the
convictions for domestic assault and malicious punishment should be reversed.
When reviewing for sufficiency of evidence, this court “view[s] the evidence in
the light most favorable to the verdict and assume[s] that the factfinder disbelieved any
testimony conflicting with that verdict.” State v. Chavarria-Cruz, 839 N.W.2d 515, 519
(Minn. 2013) (quotation omitted). We defer to the fact-finder’s determinations of witness
credibility and we acknowledge that any “attempt to retry [the] case by asking us to
reevaluate [witness] credibility is contrary to our role.” State v. Bliss, 457 N.W.2d 385,
391 (Minn. 1990). This court will not reverse a conviction when the fact-finder, “acting
with due regard for the presumption of innocence and for the necessity of overcoming it
by proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” could reasonably find the appellant guilty of the
offense. Bernhardt v. State, 684 N.W.2d 465, 476-77 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).
For a defendant to be found guilty of domestic assault (harm), the state must prove
that defendant “intentionally inflict[ed] or attempt[ed] to inflict bodily harm” upon “a
family or household member.” Minn. Stat. § 609.2242, subd. 1 (2012). For a defendant
to be found guilty of malicious punishment of a child, the state must prove that defendant
is a “parent, legal guardian, or caretaker who, by an intentional act or a series of
intentional acts with respect to a child, evidences unreasonable force or cruel discipline
that is excessive under the circumstances.” Minn. Stat. § 609.377, subd. 1. Both are
general-intent crimes, requiring only that a defendant “intended to do the physical act,
4
[not] . . . that the defendant meant to violate the law or cause a particular result.” State v.
Fleck, 810 N.W.2d 303, 309-10 (Minn. 2012).
“The law does not condone injury of children . . . .” Johnson v. Smith, 374
N.W.2d 317, 321 (Minn. App. 1985), review denied (Minn. Nov. 18, 1985). However, a
parent is not guilty of domestic assault or malicious punishment when they use
reasonable force. “[R]easonable force may be used . . . by a parent, guardian, teacher, or
other lawful custodian of a child or pupil, in the exercise of lawful authority, to restrain or
correct such child . . . .” Minn. Stat. § 609.06 (2014). When determining the scope of
reasonable disciplinary force, this court has considered a child’s age, height, and weight;
“the seriousness of the [child’s] infraction; the degree of force used by the parent; and the
physical impact of the discipline.” In re Welfare of Children of N.F., 735 N.W.2d 735,
738-39 (Minn. App. 2007), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 749 N.W.2d 802
(Minn. 2008).
There was sufficient evidence to support the finding of unreasonable disciplinary
force. The district court received a great deal of evidence regarding the nature and extent
of N.E.P.’s injuries. Both appellant and 12-year-old N.E.P. testified regarding the actions
that caused the injuries. N.E.P. had been badly misbehaving, but was not being
aggressive in a way that demanded physical correction at that time. Appellant caused the
petechiae on N.E.P.’s neck area by restraining N.E.P. Once restrained, appellant
intentionally struck him with a belt, which caused marks on his legs and back. Multiple
exhibits showed the injured areas of N.E.P.’s body through photographs taken at the
hospital that day. Testimony by Godden and Dr. Eikens demonstrated the nature and
5
seriousness of the injuries. Considering appellant’s use of a belt as an instrument of
physical punishment, and taking the facts in the light most favorable to the verdict, a
reasonable fact-finder could conclude appellant used unreasonable force.
Affirmed.
6