State of Minnesota, Respondent,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A18-0189

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Jason Alan Beckstrand,
Appellant.

Filed March 4, 2019
Affirmed
Hooten, Judge

Polk County District Court
File No. 60-CR-17-92

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Greg Widseth, Polk County Attorney, Scott A. Buhler, Assistant County Attorney,
Crookston, Minnesota (for respondent)

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

Considered and decided by Hooten, Presiding Judge; Rodenberg, Judge; and
Cochran, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
HOOTEN, Judge
In this appeal from a conviction of second-degree criminal sexual conduct, appellant
argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, and that the district

2
court committed reversible error by admitting his prior convictions to impeach his
testimony. We affirm.
FACTS
At the time of the incident which gave rise to this case, a ppellant Jaso n A.
Beckstrand shared custody of his two children with his ex-girlfriend, a son, who was eight
years old, and a daughter, who was ten years old. Beckstrand’s ex-girlfriend had primary
custody of the children, and Beckstrand had custody every other weekend. Beckstrand
lived with his current girlfriend and her two children.
One weekend in early January of 2017, while his son and daughter were staying
with him, his son, wh o was sleeping on the couch, woke up frightened and went into the
bed where Beckstrand and his daughter were sleeping. Once his son got into the bed,
Beckstrand reached over and started touching his son’s penis under his clothing for roughly
five seconds, moving his hand around after putting it down his son’s pants.
The state charged Beckstrand with first -degree criminal sexual conduct for this
behavior and subsequently amended the charge to second-degree criminal sexual conduct.
Minn. Stat. § 609.343 (2016).1 Prior to opening arguments in the jury trial, Beckstrand
objected to the state’s use of his prior convictions as impeachment if he testified. The
district court ruled that the prior convictions were admissible, but ordered that some of the
convictions be referred to as “unspecified felonies” to avoid the potential for prejudice.

1 The state also charged Beckstrand with two other counts of second-degree criminal sexual
contact for other incidents involving his daughter and his current girlfriend’s daughter. The
jury found Beckstrand not guilty of those charges and they are not at issue in this appeal.

3
Beckstrand chose to testify and his attorney introduced the prior convictions during direct
examination. The jury convicted Beckstrand of second-degree criminal sexual conduct and
the di strict court sentenced him to an executed sentence of 150 months. This appeal
follows.
D E C I S I O N
I. The evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict.
Beckstrand was convicted of second-degree criminal sexual conduct under Minn.
Stat. § 609.343, subd. 1(a). A conviction under this statute requires the state to prove that
a defendant engaged in “sexual contact” with a victim under 13 years of age and that the
defendant was more than 36 months older than the victim. Minn. Stat. § 609.343, subd.
1(a). Under the relevant section, “sexual contact” is defined as “the intentional touching
by the actor of the complainant’s intimate parts,” or “the touching of the clothing covering
the immediate area of the intimate parts,” with “sexual or aggressive intent.” Minn. Stat.
§ 609.341, subd. 11(a)(i), (iv) (2016).
Beckstrand does not contest that his son was under 13 years of age, that he was more
than 36 months older than his son , or that he actually touched his son’s penis. But
Beckstrand argues that the evidence was not sufficient to support a finding that he
intentionally touched his son’s penis, and that even if the evidence were sufficient to show
that he did, the evidence would be insufficient to show that he committed the act with
sexual or aggressive intent. Because the record contains no direct evidence of Beckstrand’s
intent, i.e., he did not confess, we apply the circumstantial-evidence standard of review.

4
When reviewing a conviction based on cir cumstantial evidence, we apply a two-
step analysis. State v. Harris, 895 N.W.2d 592, 598 –601 (Minn. 2017). The first step is
to identify the circumstances proved “by resolving all questions of fact in favor of the jury’s
verdict,” in deference to the jur y’s credibility determinations. Id. at 600. “In identifying
the circumstances proved, we defer to the jury ’s acceptance of the proof of these
circumstances and rejection of evidence in the record that conflicted with the circumstances
proved by the State .” State v. Sterling , 834 N.W.2d 162, 175 (Minn. 2013) (quotation
omitted); see also State v. Nissalke , 801 N.W.2d 82, 108 (Minn. 2011) (“We construe
conflicting evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the jury
believed the State’s witnesses and disbelieved the defense witnesses.” (quotation omitted)).
Second, we independently consider the “reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the
circumstances proved. ” Harris, 895 N.W.2d at 601 . “To sustain the conviction, the
circumstances proved, when viewed as a whole, must be consistent with a reasonable
inference that the accused is guilty and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except
that of guilt.” Id.
The circumstances proved establish that: Beckstrand’s son got i nto bed with
Beckstrand because he was scared, Beckstrand moved his hand to touch his son’s penis, he
placed his hand under his son’s clothes, once his hand was down his son’s pants, “he kept
moving it around ,” this continued for approximately five seconds , and Beckstrand was
pretending to be asleep but was real ly awake during this encounter . While Beckstrand
testified that, if he did touch his son’s penis, he had no sexual intent, the jury convicted
Beckstrand of second -degree criminal sexual conduct, effectively rejecting his defense

5
testimony. Therefore, we take as proven the circumstance that Beckstrand was motivated
by sexual intent when he touched his son’s penis. The alternate hypotheses that the
touching was accidental or was not sexually motivate d are foreclosed by these
circumstances, as is any other reasonable hypothesis other than guilt.
As Beckstrand notes, under Minnesota law , “[s]exual intent must be established to
avoid criminalizing contact that is accidental or that serves an innocuous, non-sexual
purpose.” State v. Austin, 788 N.W.2d 788, 792 (Minn. 2010), review denied (Minn. Dec.
14, 2010). But this was not a case where there was some plausible, innocuous purpose for
Beckstrand’s actions . Beckstrand points to caselaw where there were statements by a
defendant that were indicative of sexual intent, and argues that because he did not make
such statements, the evidence is insufficient. 2 This argument is meritless. Because the
circumstances proved are inconsistent with anything other than an intentional touching that
was sexually motivated, the absence of confessed sexual intent is not fatal to the jury’s
verdict. See, e.g., State v. Vick, 632 N.W.2d 676, 691 (Minn. 2001) (evidence of appellant’s
actions was sufficient to support element of sexual intent); State v. Kraushaar, 470 N.W.2d
509, 510–11 (Minn. 1991) (same); State v. Christopherson, 500 N.W.2d 794, 798 (Minn.
App. 1993) (same).

2 While there is no direct evidence of Beckstrand’s intent to touch his son’s penis or that
he was sexually motivated, such evidence is not required to support a jury’s verdict. See
State v. Cooper, 561 N.W.2d 175, 179 (Minn. 1997) (“In reaching its conclusion, the jury
may infer that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of his actions and a
defendant’s statements as to his intentions are not binding on the jury if his acts
demonstrated a contrary intent.”).

6
We therefore hold that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find Beckstrand
guilty of second-degree criminal sexual conduct.
II. Admission of Beckstrand’s adult convictions was not an abuse of discretion,
and admission of his juvenile adjudication was harmless error.

Beckstrand also argues that the district court committed reversible error in ruling
that his prior convictions, including a felony -level juvenile adjudication, were admissible
to impeach his testimony if he chose to testify. Beckstrand claims: (1) the district cour t
abused its discretion by improperly applying the Jones factors; (2) his juvenile adjudication
was erroneously admitted because it was not a n adult conviction; and (3) that these errors
were not harmless.
“The admission of evidence rests within the broad discretion of the [district] court
and its ruling will not be disturbed unless it is based on an erroneous view of the law or
constitutes an abuse of discretion.” Kroning v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co., 567 N.W.2d 42,
45–46 (Minn. 1997) (quotation omitted). Absent an erroneous application of the law, a
district court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily or capriciously. Id. at 46.
When a witness is testifying, evidence of a prior conviction may be admissible to
impeach that witness’s credibility when it was a felony and “ the court determines that the
probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect.” Minn. R. Evid.
609(a). In determining whether the probative value of a prior conviction outweighs its
prejudicial effect, district courts are obliged to consider “(1) the impeachment 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 . . . , (4) the importance of the

7
defendant’s testimony, and (5) the centrality of the credibility issue. ” State v. Hill , 801
N.W.2d 646, 653 (Minn. 2011) (quoting State v. Jones , 271 N.W.2d 534, 538 (Minn.
1978)).
If there is an objection to the admission of evidence at trial, its admissibility is
reviewed on appeal under the harmless -error standard. State v. Matthews , 800 N.W.2d
629, 633 (Minn. 2011). Under this standard, an appellant “who alleges an error that does
not implicate a constitutional right must prove that there is a reasonable possibility that the
wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict. ” Id. (quotation omitted).
But, if the evidence is admitted without objection at trial, the admission of such evidence
is reviewed for plain error. Id. at 633–34. Under the plain -error standard, an appellant
must show that the admission of the evidence by the district court was (1) error; (2) that is
plain; and (3) the error affected his substantial rights. State v. Griller , 583 N.W.2d 736,
740 (Minn. 1998). “If these three prongs are met, the appellate court then assesses whether
it should address the error to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.”
Id. “An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, which is typically established if the error
contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” State v. Webster, 894 N.W.2d 782,
787 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted). “The court’s analysis under the third prong of the
plain error standard of review is the equivalent of a harmless error analysis. ” Matthews,
800 N.W.2d at 634.
Adult felony convictions
While the state does not contest that appellant objected to the admission of his prior
convictions at trial, it argues that because Beckstrand did not make the same arguments on

8
appeal that he made to the district court, these arguments should only be reviewed for plain
error. However, because we find that there was no error in the introduction of Beckstrand’s
adult convictions, we need not rule on whether his objections at trial were made with the
requisite specificity to avoid forfeiture and thus review under the plain-error standard.
Beckstrand argues that the district court erred in admitting his prior adult
convictions for two reasons. First, he contends that the district court erred by not
considering each of his nine prior adult felony convictions independently. Second, he
asserts that the dist rict court erred by understating the combined prejudicial effect of the
amount of his prior convictions.
The state contends that the district court sufficiently consider ed each of
Beckstrand’s prior adult felony convictions, and that the district court did not err by not
considering the cumulative prejudicial effect of those convictions. Beckstrand responds
that the district court erred in not considering each of his prior convictions independently
under the Jones factors.
But the district cour t did consider these factors for each conviction. And n otably,
only two of the five Jones factors are even subject to individual analysis when multiple
convictions are admitted in a single trial. See Jones, 271 N.W.2d at 538. While the district
court did not create a record applying the Jones factors to each conviction individually ,
that is not what Minnesota law requires. The law requires that district courts “demonstrate
on the record that [they have] considered and weighed the Jones factors.” Swanson, 707
N.W.2d at 655. There is no requirement that courts create a detailed record analyzing
exactly how each factor applies to each conviction.

9
And here the district court clearly cons idered the requisite factors. In o ver four
pages of transcript, the district court analyzed the factors as applie d to Beckstrand’s
convictions. The district court explicitly demonstrated that it considered each conviction
individually when it noted the following:
And I do believe, for some of these prior convictions, tha t the
prejudicial impact outweighs the probative value. And so I’m
going to go through these and I’m going to make a
determination about those convictions that are going to be
referred to . . . as unspecified felonies.

The remainder of the four pages of analysis also supports the conclusion that the district
court appropriately considered the individual convictions.
Furthermore, State v. Irby provides an excellent illustration of what Minnesota law
requires of district courts when applying the Jones factors to multiple convictions. 820
N.W.2d 30, 36 –37 (Minn. App. 2012), aff’d on other grounds , 848 N.W.2d 515 (Minn.
2014). There, Irby challenged the sufficiency of the district court’s consideration of his
two prior convictions. Id. at 36. The district court’s analysis in that case consisted of the
following:
[C]onsidering the Jones factors, I ’m finding th at the
impeachment value as felonies, and indicative of seeing Mr.
Irby as a whole, that I ’m going to allow him to be impeached
with the 2000 agg ro bbery and the DUI, given the fact that
they’re of recent dates, he has a subsequent history of criminal
activity, they ’re not similar to what he ’s charged with, his
testimony is important and they go to his credibility and allows
the jury to see the whole person and assess his general
trustworthiness.

Id. at 36–37. This court reviewed the analysis and held it was sufficient. Id. at 37. Given
that this paragraph -long analysis was sufficient, the district court’s analysis here surely

10
was, when it went thr ough all five factors and extensively weighed them over the course
of four pages in the transcript.
Beckstrand next argues that the district court erred in not considering the prejudicial
effect of multiple felony convic tions. It is true that the district court did not consider the
potential prejudice from the admission of Beckstrand’s many previous convictions. But he
cites to no authority requiring that a district court consider this. Contra Jones, 271 N.W.2d
at 538 (laying out the five factors courts must consider in admitting prior felony convictions
for impeachment purposes). Thus, he has failed to meet his burden of establishing error in
the district court’s decision. See Griller, 583 N.W.2d at 740.
We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing
Beckstrand’s prior adult convictions to be admitted for the purpose of impeaching his
testimony.
Juvenile adjudication
Beckstrand argues that the Minnesota Rules of Evidence prohibit the introduction
of his juvenile adjudication. The state concedes this point. Appellant did object to the
admission of his juvenile adjudication at trial.
“Evidence of juvenile adjudications is not admissible under this rule unless
permitted by statute or required by the state or federal constitution.” Minn. R. Evid. 609(d).
We agree with the parties that it was error for the district court to admit Beckstrand’s
juvenile adjudication for impeachment purposes. However, we will only reverse his
conviction if this err or was prejudicial. See State v. Amos , 658 N.W.2d 201, 203 (Minn.
2003) (“On appeal, the appellant has the burden of establishing that the trial court abused

11
its discretion and that appellant was thereby prejudiced.”). On appeal, Beckstrand has the
burden of establishing the prejudicial effect of any errors. Id. “An error is harmless if
there is no reasonable possibility that it substantially influence [d] the jury ’s decision. ”
State v. Taylor, 869 N.W.2d 1, 14 (Minn. 2015) (quotation omitted).
Beckstrand claims that these errors were not harmless because: (1) of the volume of
evidence; (2) the importance of Beckstrand’s credibility; and (3) that the jury had some
doubt about the charges against him because the jury only found him guilty of one charge.
The state disputes Beckstrand’s claims by asserting: (1) any potential errors were mitigated
by the district court’s two cautionary instructions; (2) any prejudice arising from the prior
convictions was “sanitized” by referencing them only as “unspecified felonies”; and (3) the
fact that the jury convicted him of one charge but acquitted him of the other two
demonstrates that they carefully considered the evidence and only convicted him of the
charge that they believed he was guilty of beyond a reasonable doubt.
Beckstrand’s first argument is one sentence long and is a conclusory statement that
so many convictions were admitted that “the jury was not going to miss this evidence given
its volume.” Beckstrand cites to no authority to support this arg ument,3 and does not
consider a circumstance where this court concludes that not all of his convictions were
erroneously admitted. And as we have determined , the only conviction that was
erroneously admitted was Beckstrand’s juvenile adjudication. Because Beckstrand’s

3 In fact, Beckstrand does not cite to any authority other than the standard of review in this
section of his brief.

12
argument is premised on this court first finding that the district court erred in admitting
more than one of his prior convictions, and we reject this premise, his argument fails.
Beckstrand’s next two arguments are that his credibility was important in this case,4
and that this was a close case because the jury only convicted hi m of one out of three
counts. Again, Beckstrand cites to no authority to support either argument.
Logically, both of these arguments fail simply because nine out of the ten
convictions used to impeach Beckstrand were properly admitted. There is no reasonable
possibility that the jury would have been set to acquit Beckstrand after his testimony was
impeached by nine prior adult felony convictions, but then convicted him after hearing
about an unspecified juvenile felony that took place in 2002. See Taylor, 869 N.W.2d at
14. And Minnesota jurisprudence is filled with cases where courts have found harml ess
error when one or more prior convictions were erroneously admitted because of a backdrop
of other prior convictions. See, e.g., State v. Darveaux , 318 N.W.2d 44 , 48–49 (Minn.
1982); State v. Swinger, 800 N.W.2d 833 , 838 (Minn. App. 2011), review denied (Minn.
Sept. 28, 2011); State v. Hofmann, 549 N.W.2d 372, 376 (Minn. App. 1996), review denied
(Minn. Aug. 6, 1996).
Beckstrand also argues that the district court’s cautionary instructions were
insufficient, but makes no attempt to explain why , other than stating that “given these
circumstances,” the evi dence was not harmless. As the state correctly points out, the

4 Beckstrand was facing three separate charges for three different minor victims. The fact
that Beckstrand was convicted of this one charge but acquitted of the other two suggests
that each individual victim’s credibility was of central importance to the jury concerning
each charge.

13
district court properly instructed the jury multiple times about the probative uses of prior
convictions, and juries are presumed to follo w instructions. See Hill, 801 N.W.2d 658
(“We presume that the jury followed the instructions given by the court.”).
Finally, as respondent notes, the district court sanitized the convictions that seemed
too prejudicial, including the juvenile adjudication. As Minnesota law holds, referring to
“unspecified felony” convictions can serve to reduce any potential prejudice from those
convictions. See id. at 652–53 (allowing for the use of unspecified felony convictions even
in cases where the use of the unde rlying felony would be too prejudicial , so long as the
unspecified felony conviction satisfies the requirements of Minn. R. Evid. 609(a)(1)).
We therefore hold that , although it was error for the district court to rule that
Beckstrand’s juvenile adjudication could be used for impeachment purposes, that error was
harmless because there is no reasonable possibility that it influenced the jury’s verdict.
Affirmed.