State of Minnesota, Respondent,

This opinion will be unpublished and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
A17-1044

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Rick James Carlson,
Appellant.

Filed May 14, 2018
Affirmed
Schellhas, Judge

Chippewa County District Court
File No. 12-CR-16-474

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Karen B. McGillic, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul,
Minnesota; and

David Gilbertson, Chippewa County Attorney, Montevideo, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Pub lic Defender, Roy G. Spurbeck, Assistant
Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Schellhas, Pres iding Judge; Reyes, Judge; and Stauber,
Judge.
*

* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
SCHELLHAS, Judge
Appellant challenges his convictions of threats of violence, arguing that the district
court erroneously admitted unobjected-to recorded statements. We affirm.
FACTS
When T.V., a city mainte nance worker, executed a wa ter-shutoff work order at
appellant Rick Carlson’s home, Carlson became very angry. He gr abbed the work order,
drove to city hall, and found the city clerk, S.B., who had signed the work order. Carlson
crumpled the work order and threw it at S.B ., shouted various profanities at her, and told
her that he was “going to kill” her.
When Carlson returned home, he found T. V. visiting with one of his neighbors.
Carlson brandished a hunting knife and threatened T.V. that he was “going to kill” him and
that he then was going to kill S.B. Carlson also slashed T.V.’s city maintenance truck,
followed T.V. to Carlson’s landlord’s home, continued to threaten T.V., and further
damaged T.V.’s maintenance truck. Carlson’s landlord’s wife called 911 to report Carlson.
Responding to the 911 call, Deputies Weick and Marcinkowski found Carlson at home and
arrested him. Deputy Marcinkowski’s body-mic recorded Carlson’s arrest.
Respondent State of Minnesota charged Carlson with two counts of making threats
of violence under Minn. Stat. § 609.713, subd . 1 (2016), one each for S.B. and T.V.; and
one count of first-degree criminal damage to property under Minn. Stat. § 609.595, subd.
1(3) (2016). At a pretrial hearing, Carlson m oved the district court to redact statements
from Deputy Marcinkowski’s body-mic recoding but did not object to the statements that

3
he now challenges on appeal. The district court excluded portions of the recording but not
the statements that Carlson now challenges.
A jury found Carlson guilty on all three counts. The court adjudicated Carlson guilty
on the two counts of making threats of violence, imposed stayed sentences for those counts,
and stayed adjudication on the criminal-damage-to-property count.
This appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
Carlson argues that the district court co mmitted plain error that affected his
substantial rights when it ad mitted Deputy Marcin kowski’s body-mic recording of the
following statements:
DEPUTY WEICK: We didn’t do cuffs the last
time we went to Wilmar. I don’t care. Do you remember?
THE DEFENDANT: I had cuffs.
DEPUTY WEICK: What’s that?
THE DEFENDANT: I had handcuffs on when they took me to
Wilmar.
. . . .
DEPUTY MARCINKOWSKI: Well, what . . . make[s] you
feel better when you’re upset?
THE DEFENDANT: You can’t do that.
DEPUTY MARCINKOWSKI: Hum?
THE DEFENDANT: You don’t have any pot.
DEPUTY MARCINKOWSKI: Pot?
THE DEFENDANT: You can’t get me any weed.
. . . .
THE DEFENDANT: Pot
DEPUTY MARCINKOWSKI: Don’t have it.
THE DEFENDANT: I know. Could do it more often.

The state argues that Carlson forfeited his cl aim because he failed to object at trial
to the admission of the challenged statements. We agree.

4
“When a defendant fails to object at trial, the forfeiture doctrine generally precludes
appellate relief.” State v. Lilienthal, 889 N.W.2d 780, 784 (Minn. 2017); see also State v.
Beaulieu, 859 N.W.2d 275, 278 (Minn. 2015) (“A constitutional right, or a right of any
other sort, may be forfeited in criminal . . . cases by the failure to make timely assertion of
the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determ ine it.” (quotation omitted)), cert.
denied, 136 S. Ct. 92 (2015). The supreme court has “held that an objection to the
admissibility of evidence must be made at th e first opportunity, and that the failure to do
so forfeits the right to raise the question on appeal.” Lilienthal, 889 N.W.2d at 785.
While this court may review unobjected-to statements for plain error, our decision
to do so is discretionary. See Minn. R. Crim. P. 31.02 (“Plain error affecting a substantial
right can be considered by the court . . . on appeal even if it was not brought to the [district]
court’s attention.” (emphasis added)); see also Lilienthal, 889 N.W.2d at 785 (stating that
Minn. R. Crim. P. 31.02 “ allows appellate courts to correct forfeited errors” (emphasis
added)); State v. Sontoya , 788 N.W.2d 868, 872 (Minn. 2010) (“We have discretion to
review unobjected to error under the plain error rule.” (emphasis added)). Because Carlson
failed to object to the now-challenged statements, he has forfeited the issue, and we decline
to review his challenge. See Taylor v. State, ___ N.W.2d ___, ___, 2018 WL 1633339, at
*3 (Minn. Apr. 4, 2018) (declin ing to consider forfeited claim and stating that it “is well
settled that a party may not raise issues for the first time on appeal” (quotation omitted)).
Affirmed.