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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A17-1668

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Salanius Ortiz Dixon,
Appellant.

Filed October 22, 2018
Affirmed
Connolly, Judge

Dakota County District Court
File No. 19HA-CR-16-2870

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

James C. Backstrom, Dakota County Attorney, Heather Pipenhagen, Assistant County
Attorney, Hastings, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Sara L. Martin, Assistant Public
Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Rodenberg, Presiding Judge; Connolly, Judge; and
Johnson, Judge.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
CONNOLLY, Judge
In this appeal from convictions of first- and second-degree criminal sexual conduct,
appellant argues that (1) the district court deprived him of his right to present a complete
defense by excluding evidence that the victim had a tendency to fabricate and may have
been exposed to pornographic videos and conversations about sexual abuse; (2) the district
court erred in permitting appellant’s impeachment with a 2014 felony theft conviction; and
(3) this court should independently review the materials reviewed in camera by the district
court to determine whether any material relevant to the defense was not disclosed. Because
we see no error and our review of the materials indicates that all relevant documents were
disclosed, we affirm.
FACTS
Appellant Salanius Ortiz Dixon was convicted of first - and second-degree criminal
sexual conduct for repeatedly engaging in sexual activity with a minor girl, A.H. In 2014,
A.H.’s parents divorced. Appellant , the ex -husband of A.H.’s aunt, moved into A.H.’s
father’s house to help him care for A.H. and her younger brother. He lived with the family
from late summer of 2014, when A.H. was eight years old, until late summer of 2015. A.H.
reported that d uring this time, appellant t ouched A.H.’s “girl part” four times, which
included licking and touching with appellant’s fingers and mouth, and rubbing his “boy
part” outside and inside her “girl part.” A.H.’s mother called child protection services.
Appellant adamantly denies inappropriately touching A.H.

3
Prior to tri al, the parties stipulated to in camera review of A.H.’s child-protection
records. The district court then ordered disclosure to the defense of the child-protection
records that contained relevant information . Following trial, appellant filed a petition for
access to the sealed records, which the district court granted.
At trial, the district court allowed the state to impeach appellant using evidence of
his 2014 felony theft conviction, but refused to admit two felony controlled-substance
convictions. Appellant sought to introduce evidence of A.H.’s predisposition to fabricate
by showing that she lies about minor things such as doing her homework or hitting her
brother. The district court found this evidence to be ina dmissible because “it is highly
typical of a child” and “wholly irrelevant to predisposition to a character trait.”
Appellant sought to introduce statements from his girlfriend regarding her
conversation with A.H.’s mother about sexual abuse, at which A.H. was supposedly
present. The district court ruled the testimony on that matter was inadmissible because it
was irrelevant, more prejudicial than probative, and would confuse the jury. Appellant
also sought to introduce statements from his girlfriend concerning how, in her presence,
A.H.’s father told appellant he found pornography on A.H.’s computer tablet. The district
court did not allow A.H.’s girlfriend to testify on this issue because she did not see the
pornography and her testimony regarding the conversation “goes to an extraneous matter.”
The jury found appellant guilty of first- and second-degree criminal sexual conduct.
The district court denied appellant’s motion for a downward dispositional departure and
sentenced him to a presumptive term of 168 months in prison. This appeal follows.

4
D E C I S I O N
I.
Appellant argues that the district court deprived him of his right to present a
complete defense by excludi ng evidence that the victim had a tendency to fabricate and
may have been exposed to conversations about sexual abuse and pornographic videos.
“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the [district] court and will not be
reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.” State v. Amos, 658 N.W.2d 201, 203 (Minn.
2003). This standard of review applies even when “the defendant claims that the exclusion
of evidence deprived him of his constitutional right to a meaningful opportunity to present
a complete defense.” State v. Zumberge, 888 N.W.2d 688, 694 (Minn. 2017). If a district
court’s evidentiary ruling is determined to be erroneous, and the error reaches the level of
a constitutional error such as denying the defendant the right to present a defense, our
standard of review is whether the exclusion of evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable
doubt. State v. Smith, 876 N.W.2d 310, 331 (Minn. 2016). In applying this harmless-error
test, this court must look at the basis for the jury’s verdict and determine what effect the
error had on the actual verdict. State v. Blom, 682 N.W.2d 578, 622 (Minn. 2004). “If the
verdict actually rendered was surely unattributable to the error, the error is harmless beyond
a reasonable doubt.” Id. “On appeal, the appellant has the burden of establishing that the
[district] court abused its discretion and that appellant was thereby prejudiced.” Amos, 658
N.W.2d at 203.

5
a. Evidence of Tendency to Fabricate
Appellant sought to introduce evidence regarding A.H.’s predisposition to fabricate
this charge of criminal sexual conduct. In general, “[e]vidence of a person’s character is
not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular
occasion.” Minn. R. Evid. 404(a). The accused may offer “[e]vidence of a pertinent trait
of character of the victim.” Minn. R. Evid. 404(a)(2). Appellant asserted that A.H. would
lie “about a number of different things . . . such as whether or not she did her homework,”
what she ate, hitting her brother, doing chores, and cleaning her room. The district court
held t hat A.H.’s dishonesty about “childish things” did not “show a predisposition to
fabricate a charge of sexual conduct.” Appellant argued that it was relevant under Rule
404(a)(2) “to go to the pertinent trait of character that [A.H.] has a tendency to kind of
make things up.” Concluding that these “specific instances of typical childhood conduct”
were “highly typical of a child” and “wholly irrelevant to predisposition to a character
trait,” the district court properly excluded the testimony under Minn. R. Evid. 404(a)(2).
See State v. Sandberg , 406 N.W.2d 506, 510 (Minn. 1987) (excluding testimony from
witnesses regarding the credibility of a sexual -abuse victim based on her reputation and
specific acts of dishonesty under Minn. R. Evid. 404(a)(2)).
The district court concluded that , although appellant could not admit specific
instances of conduct, he could introduce evidence of A.H.’s character by reputation or
opinion under Minn. R. Evid. 405(a). This rule permits inquiry into re levant specific
instances of conduct on cross-examination. Id. As the district court concluded, the specific
instances brought forward by appellant were “wholly irrelevant [of a] predisposition” to

6
fabricate child sexual abuse, app ellant was not allowed to cross -examine witness es
regarding these s pecific instances of conduct. But t he district court never held that
appellant could not question any witnesses about A.H.’s general reputation for truthfulness.
Appellant chose not to do so at trial.
“A conviction will stand despite erroneously excluded evidence when the error was
harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Troxel v. State, 875 N.W.2d 302, 308 (Minn. 2016).
The erroneous exclusion of evidence is harmless if the reviewing court is satisfied beyond
a reasonable doubt that, if the evidence had been admitted and its damaging potential fully
realized, a reasonable jury would have reached the same verdict. Smith, 876 N.W.2d at
331.
Even if the district court should have admitted evidence that A.H. lied about certain
childhood activities, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt ; its admission
would not have led a reasonable juror to believe A.H. fabricated allegations of sexual abuse
and it would not have changed the verdict because A.H.’s testim ony was credible and
consistent with her previous statements made in 2015 to her cousin, her mother, and a
social worker that appellant had touched her “in the wrong way.”
b. Conversations about Sexual Abuse
Appellant also asserts the district court abused its discretion in restricting appellant’s
girlfriend from testifying regarding a conversation, at which A.H. was purportedly present
for, when A.H.’s mother disclosed her own experience with childhood sexual abuse.
Relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by
the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by

7
considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative
evidence. Minn. R. Evid. 403 . The district court ruled the testimony on that matter was
inadmissible because it was irrelevant, more prejudicial than probative, and would confuse
the jury.
Appellant argues that the evidence provided “the idea of child sexual abuse
independent of s omething actually happening to [A.H.].” The state maintained that the
testimony on that issue was irrelevant and A.H.’s mother never spoke with appellant’s
girlfriend about her childhood. The district court’s decision was not a clear abuse of
discretion because introducing testimony about A.H.’s mother’s childhood sexual abuse is
not probative of whether appellant sexually abused A.H. and could confuse the jury. Even
if the district court should have admitted appellant’s girlfriend’s testimony on this is sue,
any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because its admission would not lead a
reasonable juror to believ e A.H. fabricated allegations of sexual abuse. Assuming that
appellant had been allowed to offer the evidence that A.H. had potentially been exposed to
this conversation, it would not have changed the verdict because A.H.’s testimony was
credible and consistent with her previous statements about the sexual abuse.
c. Exposure to Pornography
Appellant asserts that the district court abused its discretion in restricting appellant’s
girlfriend from testifying that she was present during a conversation between appellant and
A.H.’s father regarding pornography on A.H.’s computer tablet. A witness may not testify
to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has
personal knowledge of the matter. Minn. R. Evid. 602. Appellant testified that A.H.’s

8
father found pornographic material on the tablet, which he showed to appellant. A.H.’s
father denied seeing videos of adults having sex on the tablet, but admitted to taking the
tablet away after finding a “My Little Ponies having sex cartoon” on the tablet. The district
court did not allow appellant’s girlfriend to testify regarding the pornography or the
conversation because she did not see the pornography on the tablet and her testimony about
the conversation goes to an “extraneous matter . . . about monitoring the tablet use or
enforcing tablet rules.” Because appellant’s girlfriend never personally saw the
pornography on the tablet, she lacked personal knowledge to testify as to the content of the
pornography. See id.
Appellant argues this testimony was important both to corroborate his account of
the conversation and what type of pornography was fo und and to impeach A.H.’s father’s
testimony, which downplayed A.H.’s exposure to the pornographic material. A defendant
has a constitutional right to present a meaningful defense. State v. Greer, 635 N.W.2d 82,
91 (Minn. 2001). That right, however, is not unlimited. Id. Evidence may be excluded if
it is repetitive, marginally relevant, or poses an undue risk of confusion of the issues. Id.
The district court’s decision that appellant’s girlfriend’s testimony went to an extraneous
matter was not a cl ear abuse of discretion because the evidence was repetitive and only
marginally relevant. Despite limiting appellant’s girlfriend’s testimony , the district court
allowed appellant to testify about the pornographic material and to cross -examine A.H.’s
father about finding videos showing sex acts on A.H.’s tablet. Because appellant presented
the essence of his argument th rough his own testimony and cross -examination of A.H.’s
father, he was not deprived of his constitutional right to present a meaningful defense. See

9
Greer, 635 N.W.2d at 91 -93 (finding tha t the court’s limitations on the defendant’s
testimony did not deprive him of his constitutional right to present a meaningful defense
because he was able to present other evidence regarding the circumstan ces of pretrial
statements).
Even if the district court should have admitted appellant’s girlfriend’s testimony,
any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because there was no impact on the
verdict where appellant was still able to present his account of the conversation and cross-
examine A.H.’s father on the matter . If appellant’s girlfriend had been allowed to testify
on this issue, appellant’s account might have been viewed as more credible. Nevertheless,
even if the jury had been more inclined to believe appellant’s version of events, the finding
of human pornography on A.H.’s tablet would not lead a reasonable juror to believe A.H.
fabricated a charge of appellant’s criminal sexual conduct, given the other evidence of his
guilt.
II.

Appellant claims that the district court erred in permitting his impeachment with a
2014 felony theft conviction. This court reviews a district court’s ruling on the
impeachment of a witness by prior convi ction under a clear-abuse-of-discretion standard.
State v . Williams , 771 N.W.2d 514, 518 (Minn. 2009). Appellant testified and was
impeached with the felony conviction. He argues that the district court abused its discretion
by admitting the 2014 felony theft conviction for impeachment because it was not a crime
of dishonesty and the district court referred to the Jones factors only in a conclusory
manner.

10
A witness may b e impeached by evidence that the witness has been convicted of
(1) a felony, if the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect; or
(2) any crime involving dishonesty or false statement. Minn. R. Evid. 609(a). When
determining whethe r the probative value of a prior conviction outweighs its prejudicial
effect, a district court applies the five-factor balancing test set forth in State v. Jones. 271
N.W.2d 534, 537-38 (Minn. 1978). The factors to be balanced are as follows:
(1) the imp eachment value of the prior crime, (2) the date of
the conviction and the defendant’s subsequent history, (3) the
similarity of the past crime with the charged crime (the greater
the similarity, the greater the reason for not permitting the use
of the prio r crime to impeach), (4) the importance of [the]
defendant’s testimony, and (5) the centrality of the credibility
issue.

Id. “[A] district court should demonstrate on the record that it has considered and weighed
the Jones factors.” State v. Swanson , 707 N.W.2d 645, 654 (Minn. 2006). Whether the
probative value of a prior conviction outweighs the prejudicial effect is a matter within the
discretion of the district court. State v. Graham, 371 N.W.2d 204, 208 (Minn. 1985). As
the district court is in “a unique position” to assess and weigh the Jones factors, “it must
be accorded broad discretion.” State v. Hochstein , 623 N.W.2d 617, 625 (Minn. App.
2001).
Here, the district court listed the Jones factors and stated that the “conviction’s
impeachment value is probative and goes toward the centrality of the credibility issue.”
The district court did not abuse its discretion because appellant’s conviction is a felony that
occurred in 2014, and the district court demonstrated on the record that it conside red and
weighed the Jones factors in its determination. Minn. R. Evid. 609.

11
But even if the district court’s consideration of the Jones factors was not as thorough
as it could have been , a district court’s failure to expressly consider the Jones factors on
the record is harmless error so long as this court’s review of the factors as applied to the
convictions indicates that the past convictions were admissible for impeachment purposes.
See, e.g., Swanson, 707 N.W.2d at 655. After considering and weighing the Jones factors,1
we conclude the 2014 felony theft conviction was admissible for impeachment purposes.
Appellant also argues that the district court erred by determining that the theft
conviction was a crime of dishonesty. Because the felony convictio n was properly
admitted under Rule 609(a)(1), we do not reach this argument.
III.

Appellant asks this court to independently review the materials reviewed in camera
by the district court to determine whether any material relevant to the defense was not

1 The first factor weighs in favor of admission because the conviction is a felony, and a
felony has impeachment value. State v. Davis, 735 N.W.2d 674, 680 (Minn. 2007) (noting
that prior convictions have some impeachment value because they allow the jury to see the
whole person and better judge the truth of the testimony). The second factor weighs in
favor of admission because the date of conviction was 2014, which is recent and around
the same time as the charged offense. Id. (holding that “recent convictions . . . have more
probative value than older ones”). The third factor weighs in favor of admission because
the similarity between the alleged offense, criminal sexual conduct, and the prior crime,
theft, is minimal. Jones, 271 N.W.2d at 538 (noting that the greater the similarity, the
greater the reason for not permitting use of the prior crime to impeach). The fourth factor
weighs against admission because appellant’s version of the facts was centrally important
to the result reached by the jury. See State v. Gassler , 505 N.W.2d 62, 67 (Minn. 1993)
(holding that this factor weighed against admission if admitting impeachment evidence
meant that appellant’s account of events would not be heard). Nevertheless, appellant still
chose to testify knowing this conviction would be used to impeach him. The fifth factor
weighs in favor of admission because the credibility of appellant was central to the case,
as the jury’s decision was based largely on whether they believed appellant. Id.

12
disclosed. The district court has “wide discretion in its discovery and evidentiary rulings.”
State v. Wildenberg, 573 N.W.2d 692, 696 (Minn. 1998). “On appeal, we review the limits
placed by the district court on the release and use of protected record s for an abuse of
discretion.” State v. Hokanson, 821 N.W.2d 340, 349 (Minn. 2012).
“When a criminal defendant requests [protected] records . . . the district court may
screen the confidential records in camera to balance the right of the defendant to p repare
and present a defense against the rights of victims and witnesses to privacy.” Id. When
conducting in camera review, the district court determines if any of the protected
information in the record is relevant and may be helpful to the defendant’s defense. See
State v. Paradee , 403 N.W.2d 640, 642 (Minn. 1987). Here, the district court reviewed
“[a]ny and all child protection records, reports, files, and other documents, including audio
and video files, relating to any allegations of abuse” made b y A.H. from January 1, 2013,
to the present. The district court conducted an in camera review and ordered disclosure of
the records that contain information relevant to the defense. Following trial, appellant filed
a petition for access to the sealed records and received a copy of the sealed records.
Appellant seems to assert that the district court erroneously withheld materials
relevant to the defense, but appellant has the sealed records and fails to assert any specific
error in the district court’s in camera review under Paradee. See id. Nevertheless, we
conducted our own careful review of the documents and determined that the district court
did not withhold any relevant documents.
Affirmed.