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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A18-1017

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Edward Ortiz Sanchez,
Appellant.

Filed May 20, 2019
Affirmed
Slieter, Judge

Dakota County District Court
File No. 19HA-CR-18-69

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

James C. Backstrom, Dakota County Attorney, Torrie J. Schneider, Assistant County
Attorney, Hastings, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Rachel F. Bond, 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
Appellant Edward Ortiz Sanchez challenges his conviction of violating a domestic-
abuse no-contact order (DANCO) pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 629.75, subd. 2(d)(1) (201 6).
Appellant argues the district court committed reversible error by denying his request to
redact prejudicial information contained in the DANCO submitted to the jury as evidence.
We affirm.
FACTS
On September 14, 2017, a Ramsey County District Court issued a probationary
DANCO prohibiting appellant from (1) contacting E.O. directly, indirectly, or through
others; and (2) going to her residence. On January 7, 2018 , at approximately 7:00 p.m.,
E.O., while at her residence, observed appellant banging on her bedroom window and
wearing a black Columbia coat. E.O. took the part ies’ children into the bathroom and
called police. Law enforcement arrived and observed appellant covered by a jacket sitting
with his legs crossed in the trunk of E.O.’s SUV, which was parked across the street from
her residence. Law enforcement found appellant wearing a black Columbia coat when they
took him into custody. The state charged appellant with violation of the DANCO pursuant
to Minn. Stat. § 629.75, subd. 2(d)(1).1

1 The original complaint also included a charge for controlled-substance crime in the fifth
degree (possession) in violation of Minn. Stat. § 152.025, subd. 2(1) (201 6). The state
dismissed this count before trial began.

3
Prior to trial beginning, appellant stipulated to: (1) the existence of two p rior
domestic-related convictions,2 (2) his knowledge of the DANCO , and (3) the fact that he
was served with the DANCO. The district court noted appellant’s stipulation, which meant
the DANCO would not be presented to the jury.
During trial, a ppellant’s defense theory was that he had not violated the DANCO
because he was not at the prohibited residence but was parked across the street to pick up
his children, which the DANCO did not restrict. Upon learning of appellant’s defense
theory, the state requested the court re consider the DANCO stipulation and allow
presentation to the jury of the DANCO because the state needed to show there was no
provision in the DANCO permitting appellant’s presence to pick up his children at the
residence. Appellant’s counse l objected to the admission of the DANCO because it
contained prejudicial information. The district court initially agreed to redact portions of
the DANCO and allow the redacted version to be presented to the jury ; but after the state
identified the DANCO as a certified copy, the district court determined it could not redact
the DANCO, and that it would be presented to the jury without redaction . The state later
offered the DANCO into evidence before resting its case -in-chief. Appellant’s counsel
renewed the objection to the DANCO, which the district court overruled.
Appellant testified in his defense. Appellant admitted he did not comply with law-
enforcement instructions and he lied to law enforcement about his name because of an
active warrant in an unrelated case. Appellant denied going to E.O.’s residence.

2 The state provided the court certified copies of appellant’s prior convictions as exhibits,
but the jury did not receive the copies as evidence because of the stipulation.

4
The jury found appellant guilty of the DANCO violation. The district court
convicted appellant and sentenced him to an executed 26-month prison sentence with credit
for 82 days served.
This appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
Did the district court abuse its discretion by admitting an unredacted certified
copy of the DANCO?
“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the [district] court and will
not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion. On appeal, the appellant has the burden
of establishing that the [district] court abused its discretion and that app ellant was thereby
prejudiced.” State v. Amos , 658 N.W.2d 201, 203 (Minn. 2003) (citation omitted) . A
district court’s abuse of discretion by admitting evidence does not justify a new trial unless
the admission was harmful. State v. Thao, 875 N.W.2d 834, 839 (Minn. 2016). To address
harmless error properly when a constitutional right is not implicated, the revi ewing court
considers “whether there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence
significantly affected the verdict.” State v. Goelz , 743 N.W.2d 249, 256 (Minn. 2007)
(quotation omitted).
Appellant asserts the district court erred by admitting the unredacted DANCO
because the DANCO included prejudicial information. Relevant evidence constitutes
information “having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence
to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without
the evidence.” Minn. R. Evid. 401. Any relevant evidence is generally admissible unless

5
a particular li mitation applies. Minn. R. Evid. 402. One particular type of evidence of
concern is other crimes, wrongs, or acts. Minn. R. Evid. 404(b); State v. Kennedy , 585
N.W.2d 385, 389 (Minn. 1998). Evidence cannot be introduced when its probative value
is substantially outweighed by the danger of its prejudicial effect. Minn. R. Evid. 403.
Although the evidence regarding the particular terms of the DANCO are relevant,
the DANCO itself may include evidence that is either not relevant or prejudicial and require
exclusion. 10 Minnesota Practice , CRIMJIG 13.56 cmt. (2018) (“As part of the third
element, it is advisable to insert the specific term(s) or condition(s) alleged to have been
violated.”); see a lso Minn. Stat. § 629.75, subd. 2 (2016) (referencing elements for a
DANCO violation). In this context, the district court appeared to agree with part of
appellant’s trial counsel’s assertions that the DANCO included references that should be
excluded. Although the district court found this language to be prejudicial, it determined
it lacked the authority to redact the information because it was a certified copy.
The fact that the DANCO was a certified copy does not override the limitations
imposed by relevance. Vikse v. Flaby, 316 N.W.2d 276, 285-86 (Minn. 1982) (recognizing
that, although exhibits are admissible under the self-authentication rule, their admission is
still contingent on relevance). A means to limit irrelevant evidence in a self-authenticated
document may be remedied by redacting the offending information. See State v. Noor, 907
N.W.2d 646, 656-57 (Minn. App. 2018) (recognizing a district court erred by admitting an
unredacted exhibit that contained information the defendant was entitled to exclude but the
defendant failed to establish substantial rights were violated for a new trial), review denied
(Minn. Apr. 25, 2018).

6
Assuming the district court erred in believing the DANCO, though certified, could
not be redacted , appellant must establish “there is a reasonable possibility that the
wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” Goelz, 743 N.W.2d at
256 (quotation omitted). “We have recognized that a defendant’s references to prior crimes
or prior imprisonment should generally not be admitted in evidence.” State v. Hall , 764
N.W.2d 837, 842 (Minn. 2009). A new trial is only warranted, however, by the appellant
showing prejudice caused by the error. Id. at 843.
Appellant testified he knew the existence of the DANCO that restricted contact
between him and E.O. E.O. testified she observed appellant outside her residence on
January 7, 2018 , banging on her window, wearing a black Columbia coat. Later, law
enforcement found appellant in E.O.’s vehicle across the street from her residence, in the
vehicle’s trunk, wearing a black Columbia coat. Appellant denied being outside E.O.’s
residence, stating he parked across the street to pick up his children. Law enforcement had
to use non-lethal means to force appellant out of the vehicle. Even after appellant left the
vehicle, he lied about his name to law enforcement. Appellant acknowledged his prior
criminal record including a prior felony and a crime of dishonesty.3
Assuming, without so ruling, admission of the unredacted DANCO was improper,
appellant does not establish the admission had a reasonable possibility to significantly
affect the verdict. The overall facts presented at trial established a strong case for
conviction. Appellant’s criminal record provided grounds for a jury to disbelieve his

3 The district court admitted appellant’s prior convictions after considering the factors
provided in State v. Jones, 271 N.W.2d 534, 537-38 (Minn. 1978).

7
statements. See generally State v. Flemino, 721 N.W.2d 326, 328-330 (Minn. App. 2006)
(recognizing crimes of dishonesty and felony convictions are issues that question a
person’s credibility). Nor did the state refer to the prejudicial components of the DANCO
in its closing or rebuttal arguments and, instead, focused solely on the DANCO terms
limiting contact between E.O. and appellant as well as referencing appellant’s lack of
trustworthiness based on his convictions. On this record, the unredacted DANCO did not
significantly affect the verdict.
Affirmed.