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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A17-1682

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Joshua Eric Skaalerud,
Appellant.

Filed October 1, 2018
Affirmed
Smith, John, Judge*

Stearns County District Court
File No. 73-CR-16-9355

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

Janelle P. Kendall, Stearns County Attorney, Caitlyn M. Prokop owicz Wilson, Assistant
County Attorney, St. Cloud, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Suzanne M. Senecal -Hill,
Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Halbrooks, Presiding Judge; Hooten, Judge; and Smith,
John, 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
SMITH, JOHN, Judge
We affirm appellant Joshua Eric Skaalerud’s conviction of domestic assault under
Minn. Stat. § 609.2242, subd. 4 (2016), because the evidence is sufficient to prove that the
victim was in the same family or household as appellant.
FACTS
On the evening of October 7, 2016, St. Cloud police were called to investigate a
domestic assault. K.J.G. told police that she had been physically attacked by Skaalerud,
and two neighbors d escribed observing part of the a ttack. After Skaalerud was
apprehended, he admitted to dating K.J.G. and having a sexual relationship with her
beginning in July of 2016. In a statement, Skaalerud also described how he had set up a
secret room in the garage of his parents’ home and had been trying to remove K.J.G. from
that area, but she would not leave. He described K.J.G. calling him after the offense “like
thirteen times” to participate in “boyfriend, girlfriend talkin’.”
Skaalerud was tried on two counts of domestic assault in a two-day jury trial. K.J.G.
testified that she and Skaalerud had a sexual relationship for six or seven months and lived
with each other in the garage at the time of the offense. During K.J.G.’s cross-examination,
defense co unsel elicited admissions that Skaalerud had asked K.J.G. on a number of
occasions to leave the garage and that her testimony about her injuries was inconsistent.
K.J.G. also admitted that five years earlier, when she was fourteen years old, she had seen
a “professional” for her habit of lying, and that she was triggered to lie when she got into
trouble. The two neighbors who witnessed the crime, C.W. and J.D., testified for the state.

3
Skaalerud did not testify at trial, but his police statement was rece ived into evidence
without objection. The jury convicted Skaalerud of one count of domestic assault, and the
district court imposed a 24-month executed sentence.
D E C I S I O N
Skaalerud challenges his domestic -assault conviction, arguing that the state failed
to prove that he was in the same family or household as K.J.G. at the time of the offense.
The United States Constitution “indisputably entitles a criminal defendant to a jury
determination that he is guilty of e very element of the crime with which he is charged,
beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Her, 862 N.W.2d 692, 695 (Minn. 2015) (alterations
in original) (quotations omitted). “[W]e view the evidence in a light most favorable to the
verdict to determine w hether the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences drawn
from them would permit the jury to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” State v. Hanson ,
800 N.W.2d 618, 621 (Minn. 2011) (quotation omitted). “Juries are generally in the best
position to weigh the credibility of the evidence and thus determine which witnesses to
believe and how much weight to give their testimony.” State v. Andersen , 784 N.W.2d
320, 329 (Minn. 2010) (quotation omitted). We will not “disturb the jury’s verdict if the
jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and for the necessity of
overcoming it by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that [a]
defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged.” Hanson, 800 N.W.2d at 621
(alteration in original) (quotation omitted).

4
A d omestic assault under Minn. Stat. § 609.2242, subd. 1 (2016), includes the
commission of “an act with intent to cause fear in an other of immediate bodily harm or
death” that is made “against a family or household member as defined in section 518B.01,
subdivision 2.” By definition, “[f]amily or household members” include “persons who are
presently residing together or who have resided together in the past,” and “persons involved
in a significant romantic or sexual relationship.” Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 2(b)(4), (7)
(2016). Factors affecting this determination include “the length of time of the relationship;
type of relationship; frequency of interaction between the parties; and, if the relationship
has terminated, length of time since the termination.” Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 2(b)
(2016).
Skaalerud “argues the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that h e and
[K.J.G.] were involved in a significant romantic or sexual relationship ,” and that their
relationship lacked the “level of intimacy, sharing, and connectedness that sets a significant
relationship apart from a dating relationship.” Viewing the evide nce in the light most
favorable to the verdict, we disagree. K.J.G. testified that she was in a romantic, sexual
relationship with Skaalerud for six or seven months and that they lived together in the
garage of his parents’ home. In his police statement, Skaalerud also said that he had been
dating K.J.G. since the end of July of 2016, that they were “pretty much livin’ . . . together,”
and, when pressed further, revealed that she was living in his parents’ garage . Skaalerud
also stated that they had “a s exual relationship,” and, when asked to describe their exact
relationship, said “boyfriend, girlfriend.”

5
This evidence was sufficient to establish that Skaalerud and K.J.G. were “involved
in a significant romantic or sexual relationship” for purposes of M inn. Stat. § 518B.01,
subd. 2(b)(7). As to the romantic/sexual aspect of their relationship, both parties offered
evidence that their relationship was romantic, sexual, and of sufficient duration to be
considered “significant,” as they lived together for at least several months. The applicable
factors of Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 2(b), including the duration of the relationship, the
nature of the relationship, and the parties’ unbroken period of living together demonstrate
that the relationship was significant. Under the plain language of the statute, the evidence
is sufficient to establish the significance of the relationship. See State v. Anderson , 865
N.W.2d 712, 71 6 (Minn. App. 2015) (stating that competing interpretations of a statute
make a statute ambiguous “only if the competing interpretations are reasonable,” and “[i]f
a statute’s language is clear and unambiguous, [an appellate court] rel[ies] on it alone to
determine meaning”); The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language , 1614
(4th ed. 2006) (defining “significant” as “meaningful” or “important”). Our interpretation
of the statute is consistent with its broad application to relationships of former spouses,
persons who used to live together, and persons who have a child in common, as well as
those who are in a significant romantic or sexual relationship. The relationship of
Skaalerud and K.J.G. fits within the broad scope of the statute.
Affirmed.