In the Matter of the Welfare of: E. M. L.-T., Child.

This opinion will be unpublished and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
A17-1385

In the Matter of the Welfare of:
E. M. L.-T., Child.

Filed April 2, 2018
Reversed
Cleary, Chief Judge

Douglas County District Court
File No. 21-JV-17-674

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Chad Larson, Douglas County Attorney, Ezra P. Hartsell, Assistant County Attorney,
Alexandria, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Leslie J. Rosenberg, Assistant
Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Cleary, Chie f Judge; Reilly, Judge; and Stauber, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
CLEARY, Chief Judge
Appellant E.M.L.-T. challenges the suffi ciency of the circumstantial evidence
supporting the district court’s finding of guilt. Because the evidence does not sufficiently
support guilt, we reverse.

 Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Ap peals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
2
FACTS
On December 31, 2016, 14-year-old appellant fired a BB gun loaded with cat litter
in the direction of his eight-year-old sister who was holding a piece of paper near her body.
Appellant’s sister was shot in the chest and sustained a bruise. She testified that she was
meant to hold the paper “like a target” and that the incident was an accident. Appellant
and his sister were the only two present during the incident.
Appellant was issued a citation for domestic assault in violation of Minn. Stat.
§ 609.2242, subd. 1(2) (2016). After a delinquency trial, the district court found appellant
guilty and adjudicated him delin quent, concluding that appe llant intended to shoot and
harm his sister. This appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
“A conviction based on circumstantial evidence . . . warrants heightened scrutiny.”
State v. Al-Naseer, 788 N.W.2d 469, 473 (Minn. 2010). Because there is no direct evidence
of appellant’s intent, heightened scrutiny is appropriate.
In applying heightened scrutiny, we first identify th e circumstances proved. Id. at
473. We defer to the fact-finder’s “acceptan ce of the proof of these circumstances and
rejection of evidence in the record that c onflicted with the circumstances proved by the
State.” State v. Stein, 776 N.W.2d 709, 718 (Minn. 2010). In other words, in determining
which circumstances were proved, “we disregar d testimony that is in consistent with the
verdict.” State v. Hawes, 801 N.W.2d 659, 668-69 (Minn. 2011).
We next examine “independently the reasonableness of all inferences that might be
drawn from the circumstances proved, including inferences consistent with innocence.”
3
Stein, 776 N.W.2d at 716. “[W]e give no defe rence to the fact finder’s choice between
reasonable inferences.” Id. We review the circumstantia l evidence as a whole, not as
isolated facts. State v. Hurd , 819 N.W.2d 591, 599 (Mi nn. 2012). “In assessing the
inferences drawn from the circumstances prove d, the inquiry is not simply whether the
inferences leading to guilt are reasonable. Although that must be true in order to convict,
it must also be true that there are no other reasonable, rational inferences that are
inconsistent with guilt.” Stein, 776 N.W.2d at 716.
Appellant contends that the state failed to disprove the reasonable inference that he
did not intend to harm his sister. The distri ct court rejected the accident testimony and
found that appellant had intended to harm his sister. While made on the record, these
findings were not reduced to writing.
As to the first step of the circumstantial evidence test, the district court found that
the state proved the following circumstances consistent with appellant’s guilt: (1) 14-year-
old appellant was in possession of a BB gun; (2 ) appellant’s eight-year-old sister held a
piece of paper; (3) appellant pointed the BB gu n in his sister’s dir ection; (4) appellant
intentionally pulled the trigger of the BB gun; and (5) appellant’s sister was struck by the
projectile of cat litter from the BB gun.
Appellant was adjudicated delinquent for misdemeanor domestic assault:
intentionally inflicting or attempting to in flict bodily harm upon a family or household
member. Minn. Stat. § 609.2242, subd. 1(2). Assault-harm is a general-intent crime. State
v. Fleck, 810 N.W.2d 303, 312 (Minn. 2012). “General intent is satisfied when a defendant
‘intentionally engag[ed] in the prohibited conduct.’” State v. Dorn, 887 N.W.2d 826, 830
4
(Minn. 2016) (quoting Fleck, 810 N.W.2d at 308). “For assault-harm, ‘[t]he forbidden
conduct is a physical act, which results in bodily harm upon another.’ Specifically, assault-
harm requires ‘only an intent to do the prohibited act of comm itting a battery.’” Id.
(quoting Fleck, 810 N.W.2d at 309). A battery is “[t]he nonconsensual touching of, or use
of force against, the body of another with the intent to cause harmful or offensive contact.”
Black’s Law Dictionary 182 (10th ed. 2014).
A reasonable inference from the circumstan ces proved is that appellant did not
intend to harm his sister. There is no dispute that appellant intended to pull the trigger of
the BB gun, but it is reasonable to infer from the circumstances proved that he intended to
hit or strike the paper—the target—his sister was holding rather than hitting or striking his
sister. This reasonable inference is inconsistent with guilt and warrants reversal.
While we reverse because the circumstantial evidence was not sufficient, we pause
to note the district court’s failure to issue written findings. The di strict court’s May 10,
2017 order finding appellant guilty does not contain any additional findings supporting
guilt. The absence of written findings fu rther undermines the sufficiency of the
circumstantial evidence.
In addition to making a genera l finding of guilt, a district court must “specifically
find the essential facts that support a general finding that the allegations in the charging
document have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt in writing.” Minn. R. Juv. Delinq.
P. 13.09. Here, while the district court made oral findings on the record, specific findings
supporting guilt were not redu ced to writing. Given the possible inferences from the
circumstantial evidence of intent and the add itional clarity that spec ific written findings
5
would provide in resolving that issue, this case underscores the need for such findings.
Because we reverse the adjudication on the gro und of sufficiency of the evidence, we do
not reach the remaining evidentiary issues raised by appellant.
Reversed.