State of Minnesota v. Christopher Edward Coleman ( 2017 )

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A16-0085
State of Minnesota,
Respondent,
vs.
Christopher Edward Coleman,
Appellant.
Filed January 17, 2017
Affirmed
Halbrooks, Judge
Olmsted County District Court
File No. 55-CR-15-4312
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and
Mark A. Ostrem, Olmsted County Attorney, James P. Spencer, Senior Assistant County
Attorney, Rochester, 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; Rodenberg, Judge; and
Kirk, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
HALBROOKS, Judge
Appellant challenges his conviction of felony domestic assault, arguing that the
state’s uncorroborated and inconsistent evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction.
We affirm.
FACTS
Respondent State of Minnesota charged appellant Christopher Edward Coleman
with two counts of stalking, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.749, subd. 4(b) (2014), and
one count of felony domestic assault, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.2242, subd. 4
(2012). Coleman pleaded not guilty and waived his right to a jury trial, and the matter
proceeded to a bench trial. Prior to trial, the state amended its complaint by adding a
charge of fifth-degree assault, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.224, subd. 4(b) (2012).
Separately, the district court granted the state’s motion to amend its complaint by
changing the date of the domestic-assault offense from “[o]n or about June 1, 2014” to
“on or about April and/or May 2014.” The district court held a three-day bench trial.
The district court acquitted Coleman of the two counts of stalking, and the state
dismissed the fifth-degree-assault charge. The district court convicted Coleman of felony
domestic assault and sentenced him to 33 months in prison. This appeal follows.
DECISION
Coleman argues that, because the state failed to present clear and consistent
testimony, the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction of domestic assault. “We
use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the
2
sufficiency of the evidence.” State v. Palmer, 803 N.W.2d 727, 733 (Minn. 2011). We
carefully review the record “to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences
drawn from them would permit the [fact-finder] to reasonably conclude that the
defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was
convicted.” State v. Fox, 868 N.W.2d 206, 223 (Minn. 2015). The evidence must be
viewed “in the light most favorable to the verdict, and [we] assume that the fact-finder
disbelieved any evidence that conflicted with the verdict.” Id. The conviction cannot be
overturned if the fact-finder “could reasonably have found the defendant guilty of the
charged offense.” Palmer, 803 N.W.2d at 733.
A person who “(1) commits an act with intent to cause fear in [a family or
household member] of immediate bodily harm or death; or (2) intentionally inflicts or
attempts to inflict bodily harm upon [a family or household member]” is guilty of a
felony if the act was committed “within ten years of the first of any combination of two
or more previous qualified domestic violence-related offense convictions.” Minn. Stat.
§ 609.2242, subds. 1, 4 (2012). A “family or household member” includes “persons
involved in a significant romantic or sexual relationship.” Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd.
2(b)(7) (2012).
At trial, C.P. testified about “a choking incident” that took place in April or May
2014, which was approximately two weeks before Coleman was arrested for breaking
down her door and breaking windows of a car parked in her driveway. C.P. was in a
sexually intimate relationship with Coleman at the time of the incident, and she stated
that Coleman was physically abusive to her. C.P. testified that she was in the living room
3
of her home when Coleman put his hands around her neck. She recalled trying to yell for
help, but “nothing would come out” because “he was squeezing [her] neck too hard.”
She stated that she could not speak while he was squeezing her neck. C.P. also testified
that her son, A.M., was present during this incident and that A.M. told Coleman to stop.
C.P. stated that once Coleman saw A.M., Coleman let go. C.P. did not recall why
Coleman put his hands around her neck, but she testified that he left a mark, it caused her
pain or discomfort, and he made her feel afraid. She did not call the police immediately
after this incident.
A.M., who was 15 years old at the time of the incident, also testified at trial. He
stated that Coleman was dating his mother, C.P., in 2014. A.M. testified that sometime in
April or May 2014 he witnessed Coleman grabbing C.P. around the neck, choking her for
about five seconds. He testified that he saw C.P. crying. Coleman did not say anything
when he had his hands around C.P.’s neck. But A.M. testified that Coleman stopped after
A.M. asked what he was doing. The district court concluded that A.M.’s testimony was
credible.
The state also introduced evidence of conduct pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 634.20(2012). R.M. testified that she was in an intimate relationship with Coleman from 2006
until August 2013. R.M. specifically recalled two incidents with Coleman: In March
2008, Coleman put his hands around her neck. She did not remember if it caused her
pain, but she remembered being afraid. In December 2008, Coleman picked R.M. up by
the neck and slammed her onto the ground. She also testified about other incidents in
4
which Coleman either hit her or caused her to fear him. She stated that she did not want
to testify at the trial because she feared what Coleman would do to her.
The district court also received a transcript from a different plea hearing, at which
Coleman admitted pleading guilty to domestic assault in 2008 and two violations of no-
contact orders in 2010 and 2011. The district court concluded that this evidence proved
beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of Coleman’s enhancing convictions.
The district court found Coleman guilty of felony domestic assault. It stated that
Coleman is guilty because it “believe[s C.P.’s] account that [he] choked her[,] that this
frightened her[,] and that it caused her pain.” It found A.M.’s testimony that he “briefly
saw [Coleman] with his hands around his mother’s neck” credible. The district court also
relied on R.M.’s testimony as evidence of conduct that “show[s] how [Coleman] has
treated other family or household members, including other girlfriends” and “sheds light
on how [he] interacts with those close to him, in turn suggesting how [he] may interact
with [C.P.].” It inferred that Coleman had assaultive intent “from the nature of [his]
attack on [C.P.].”
The district court concluded that Coleman and C.P. were in a significant romantic
relationship, that he assaulted C.P. by “putting his hands around her neck and throat and
squeezing, thereby choking her,” and that he had the intent to either inflict bodily harm or
cause C.P. to fear immediate bodily harm. It also determined that Coleman had three
prior domestic-violence-related convictions within the last ten years, which raised the
offense level of this domestic-assault charge to a felony. Coleman does not challenge the
enhancing convictions.
5
Coleman argues that, because the district court concluded that C.P.’s testimony
was not credible with respect to the stalking charges, her credibility was damaged and
therefore insufficient to convict him of domestic assault. He also argues that A.M.’s
“insubstantial testimony” and lack of physical corroboration call for a reversal of his
conviction. We disagree. Even uncorroborated testimony from a single, credible
witness can sustain a conviction. State v. Foreman, 680 N.W.2d 536, 539 (Minn. 2004).
Here, both C.P. and A.M. testified that C.P. was in a romantic relationship with
Coleman at the time of the incident. Additionally, the district court believed C.P.’s
testimony and determined that A.M.’s testimony that Coleman put his hands around
C.P.’s neck was credible, which corroborates C.P.’s account of the incident. The district
court also relied upon R.M.’s testimony, concluding that it “sheds light on how
[Coleman] interacts with those close to him.”
Because Coleman’s conviction rests on testimony from two credible witnesses and
other evidence of conduct, we conclude that a fact-finder could reasonably find that
Coleman assaulted C.P., a person with whom he was romantically involved. Sufficient
evidence exists to sustain Coleman’s felony domestic-assault conviction.
Affirmed.
6