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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A18-0958

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Marissa Rae Jones,
Appellant.

Filed June 10, 2019
Affirmed
Slieter, Judge

Stearns County District Court
File No. 73-CR-17-4942

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Michael Everson, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul,
Minnesota; and

Janelle Kendall, Stearns 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 Slieter, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Kalitowski,
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
SLIETER, Judge
In this direct appeal from her conviction, appellant Marissa Jones argues that her
convictions for first-degree burglary and third-degree assault must be reversed because the
state failed to prove the cha rges beyond a reasonable doubt due to uncorroborated
testimony. We affirm.
FACTS
The state charged Jones with first-degree burglary and third-degree assault. The
case was tried to a jury, and the following evidence was presented at trial.
Marissa Jones (Jones) was in a relationship with Allen Elgin (Elgin) until early
2016. Following the couple’s breakup, Elgin lived with victim S.E. for about six months.
Elgin moved out of S.E.’s house in early May 2017, and thereafter lived with Jones again.
After Elgin resumed living with Jones, Jones sent S.E. a number of threatening text
messages, warning S.E. to stay away from Elgin.
On May 12, 2017, S.E. was alone at her St. Cloud home, preparing for bed. She
heard the back door slam shut and someone coming up the stairs . Jones then appeared
upstairs. Jones took S.E.’s cell phone and bega n looking through it. S.E. told Jones to
leave. Jones grabbed S.E. by the hair and dragged her down the stairs while asking S.E. if
she had seen Elgin recently. Jones then held S.E.’s head down and punched S.E. repeatedly
in the face.

3
Jones again demanded information about S.E.’s relationship with Elgin. S.E.
complied, and Jones then hit S.E. again, knocking her to the ground. Jones also threw a
plant and a blender near S.E.
Jones stayed with S.E. through the rest of the night. Jones told S.E. she could not
leave the house, and S.E. could not call police because Jones still had her phone . During
the night, Jones searched S.E.’s purse and jewelry box.
Around 5:00 a.m., Jones brought S.E. to a local Super America to buy cigarettes.
Jones drove a black Dodge Avenger that belonged to Elgin—S.E. was in the passenger
seat. Jones waited in the car while S.E. purchased cigarettes. S.E did not ask for help in
Super America because she “was already scared and terrified.” Jones and S.E. then
returned to S.E.’s home.
At approximately 8:00 a.m., Elgin arrived at S.E. ’s home. Elgin and Jones argued
about Elgin’s affair with S.E. While Jones and Elgin argued, S.E. walked to a residential-
care facility where she previously worked and her sister -in-law currently worked. S.E.
used her sister-in-law’s phone to call her father. She asked him to keep her son for the day
because S.E. did not want her son to see her injuries. A resident of the facility, who knew
S.E., testified that he saw S.E. with severe injuries to her face.
S.E. then returned to her home—Elgin and Jones were no longer there. S.E.’s home
was a “horrible mess,” and several things were missing, including a hair straightener, blow
dryer, and surround-sound speakers.
That afternoon, S.E. sought treatment at a hospital. S.E. told hospital staff that two
women had “jumped” her in a bar. Doctors diagnosed S.E. with a fracture d eye socket.

4
The next morning, S.E. reported the assault to police. A detective spoke with Elgin, who
denied knowing anything about the assault.
The jury found Jones guilty of both charged offenses. This appeal follows.

D E C I S I O N
When considering the sufficiency of the evidence, we view “the evidence in the
light most favorable to the jury’s verdict.” State v. Braylock, 501 N.W.2d 625, 628 (Minn.
1993). “We will not disturb the 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 concl ude that a defendant was proven guilty of the
offense charged.” Bernhardt v. State , 684 N.W.2d 465, 476 -77 (Minn. 2004) (quotation
omitted).
Jones argues that her conviction should be overturned because S.E.’s
uncorroborated testimony is insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Jones
committed first-degree burglary and third-degree assault. “[A] conviction can rest on the
uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.” State v. Foreman , 680 N.W.2d
536, 539 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).
Contrary to Jones’s assertions, the jury was presented with corroborating evidence.
The state introduced surveillance footage from Super America showing S.E. arriving in a
black Dodge Avenger driven by someone else, and S.E., with facial injurie s, purchasing
cigarettes. A resident of S.E.’s former workplace testified that he saw S.E. that morning
and that she had facial injuries. The state also introduced threatening text messages that
Jones sent S.E. In summary, S.E.’s testimony was corroborated by other evidence.

5
Jones also contends that S.E. is not credible because she had motive to falsely accuse
Jones of assaulting her: Jones was interfering with S .E.’s relationship with Elgin. In
support of her argument, Jones relies on the fact that S.E. did not accuse Jones of assaulting
her until after Jones had warned S.E. to stop communicating with Elgin. Jones also attacks
S.E.’s credibility because S.E. did not inform the Super America staff that she had been
assaulted and was being held captive, did not tell her father what had occurred when she
had the chance, and told hospital staff that she had been assaulted by two women at a bar.
Generally, “judging the credibility of witnesses is the exclusive function of the
jury.” Dale v. State , 535 N.W.2d 619 , 623 (Minn. 1995). We thus defer to the jury’s
credibility determinations, State v. Watkins, 650 N.W.2d 738, 741 (Minn. App. 2002), and
assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the
contrary.” State v. Moore, 438 N.W.2d 101, 108 (Minn. 1989).
The jury was apprised of the affair between S.E. and Elgin—S.E. testified that she
informed Jones about her relationship with Elgin. S.E. also testified that the reason she
remained silent about the assault and initially claimed two women attacked her at a bar was
because she was scared of Jones. Weighing S.E.’s credibility was the jury’s role , and it
found S.E. credible . State v. Reichenberger , 182 N.W.2d 692, 69 5 (Minn. 1970). We,
therefore, affirm Jones’s conviction.1
Affirmed.

1 Jones submitted a two-page supplemental brief that appears to make a sufficiency-of-the-
evidence claim. Because we have already addressed the sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim
argued by Jones’s appellate counsel, we do not address Jones’s pro se argument.