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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A18-1109

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Karl Edward Henze,
Appellant.

Filed May 13, 2019
Affirmed
Cochran, Judge

Lake County District Court
File No. 38-CR-17-428

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

Russell H. Conrow, Lake County Attorney, Two Harbors, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Steven P. Russett, Assistant
Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Reyes, Presiding Judge; Hooten, Judg e; and Cochran,
Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
COCHRAN, Judge
Appellant Karl Edward Henze challenges his conviction of unlawf ul possession of
a firearm, arguing that the evidence introduced at trial was no t sufficient to support the
conviction. He also challenges the district court’s denial of his motion for a downward

2
dispositional departure based primarily on his significant medical problems. Because the
evidence was sufficient to suppor t the conviction and the distr ict court did not abuse its
discretion in imposing the presumptive sentence, we affirm.
FACTS
In September 2017, Henze, who was on probation for third-degree assault, met with
his probation officer, Jeffrey Ad ams. Henze told Adams that he would test positive for
hydrocodone. Based on Henze’s ad mission, Adams believed that t here might be
hydrocodone in Henze’s apartment. Henze consented to Adams sea rching his apartment
for contraband, including firearms. Henze denied that there would be firearms or any other
contraband in the apartment.
Adams, Officer Nathan Gens, and another probation officer searched the apartment.
During the search, Gens found multiple boxes of different kinds of ammunition in a dresser
drawer in Henze’s bedroom. After locating the ammunition, Gens obtained a search
warrant to search the rest of Henze’s apartment.
During the subsequent search of th e apartment, Gens located a g un cabinet in
Henze’s bedroom closet. The gun cabinet was immediately visibl e when the closet was
opened. The gun cabinet was locked but the key was in the keyhole. The cabinet contained
two rifles, three handguns, and many boxes of ammunition. Offi cers also found
ammunition elsewhere in the bedroom. Inside a dresser drawer t hat contained Henze’s
socks, at the foot of Henze’s be d, an officer found a blue case containing ammunition.
Officers also found a handgun ma gazine in the bottom of another dresser drawer.
Altogether, there was a significant amount of ammunition in the bedroom. Much of the

3
ammunition did not match the firearms that police found. Henze told Gens that he did not
know that the firearms and ammunition were in the apartment.
The state charged Henze with six counts of possession of a fire arm or ammunition
by an ineligible person under Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd. 1(2) (2016). The case proceeded
to a jury trial. At trial, Henze testified that he knew, becau se he was on probation, that a
p r o b a t i o n o f f i c e r c o u l d s e a r c h h i s h o m e a t a n y t i m e . H e a l s o acknowledged that he
consented to the search. And he agreed that the guns and ammun ition were found in his
bedroom.
According to Henze, another family member who once lived in his apartment likely
left the guns and ammunition in the bedroom, unbeknownst to him. The apartment building
where he lived has been owned by his family since 1908. Several members of his family
have occupied the building. Hen ze moved into the apartment in 2001.1 At that time, his
sister also lived there intermittently. They split time in the apartment—when he stayed in
the apartment, she stayed at another home. They both used the bedroom where the guns
were found. His sister passed away in 2007. Henze had lived in the apartment alone since
2007.
Henze testified that he did not own the guns and did not know t hat the gun cabinet
was in the closet. He believed that his sister placed the guns and ammunition in the
apartment. His sister owned guns, but she did not hunt. Henze speculated that the guns

1 He had also lived there in the 1970s.

4
may have been passed down through his family, possibly from his father. He testified that
he recognized one of the guns from when he was a child.
Henze testified that he accessed the sock drawer often but did not know that the blue
case containing ammunition was there. He testified that he had not used or paid attention
to the other dresser in his bedroom where ammunition was found because it was “off limits”
and that the dresser had been there when he moved in. He testi fied that he used the
bedroom closet—it was the only closet in the room—but he “never really went in” the side
of the closet where the gun cabinet was found. He admitted tha t the gun cabinet was not
old.
The jury found Henze guilty of all six counts of possession of a firearm or
ammunition by an ineligible person under Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd. 1(2). The district
court entered a judgment of conviction on one of the firearm counts.
Adams completed a presentence i nvestigation (PSI) before senten cing. Adams
indicated in the PSI that the state had charged Henze with thre ats of violence and
fifth-degree assault for an inc ident that occurred in January 2 018, while Henze was on
pretrial release for the current offense. The PSI also noted that Henze had been placed in
custody five times in connection with alleged probation violati ons since April 2017.
Adams opined that Henze “has little regard for orders of the [c ]ourt, as evidenced by his
lack of success on supervised probation and pre-trial release c onditions.” Adams
recommended that the district court impose the presumptive sentence under the Minnesota
Sentencing Guidelines, 60 months in prison.

5
Henze requested a downward dis positional departure, arguing th at his significant
health problems warranted the d eparture and that a condition th at Henze remain on an
alcohol monitor would be effective in keeping Henze compliant with probation conditions.
Henze asserted that his doctors told him that he had two to three years to live.2 The district
court denied Henze’s request for a departure. It expressed concern over Henze’s inability
to comply with probation conditions and concern that Henze posed a threat to public safety.
The district court imposed the presumptive sentence.
This appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
Henze challenges his conviction, arguing that the circumstantial evidence presented
at trial was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt th at he knowingly possessed
the firearms and ammunition found in his bedroom. Henze also a rgues that the district
court abused its discretion in sentencing him to the presumptive sentence despite evidence
that he suffered from a serious health condition. We address each issue in turn.
I. The evidence produced at tria l was sufficient to support Henze’s conviction.
Henze argues that the evidence w as not sufficient to establish that he knowingly
possessed firearms or ammunition. Specifically, Henze argues that the evidence does not
preclude the reasonable inferences that (1) another family memb er left the firearms and
ammunition in the apartment before Henze took possession of it and (2) Henze did not

2 Henze did not provide documentation of his prognosis despite a continuance of sentencing
to obtain such records. It was not disputed, however, that Hen ze had significant medical
issues.

6
know that the firearms and ammunition were in the apartment until they were found during
the search.
In reviewing whether a conviction was supported by sufficient evidence, this court
conducts “a painstaking analysis o f the record to determine whe ther the evidence, when
viewed in the light most favorab le to the conviction, was suffi cient” to support the
conviction. State v. Ortega, 813 N.W.2d 86, 100 (Minn. 2 012) (quotation omitted). We
assume that “the jury believed th e state’s witnesses and disbel ieved any evidence to the
contrary.” State v. Caldwell , 803 N.W.2d 373, 384 (Minn. 2011) (quotation omitted).
“[W]e will not disturb the verdict if the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of
innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doub t, could reasonably
conclude that the defendant was guilty of the charged offense.” Ortega, 813 N.W.2d at
100.
When the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, this c ourt applies a
two-step analysis. State v. Harris , 895 N.W.2d 592, 601 (Minn. 2017). First, the court
identifies the circumstances prov ed at trial, disregarding evid ence that is not consistent
with the jury’s verdict. Id. Second, the court considers the inferences that can be drawn
from the circumstances proved. Id. The court gives no deference to the jury’s inferences
at this second step. Id. The evidence is sufficient if the circumstances proved, viewe d as
a whole, are “consistent with a reasonable inference that the a ccused is guilty and
inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” Id.
Knowledge is usually proved by circumstantial evidence. State v. Ali, 775 N.W.2d
914, 919 (Minn. App. 2009), review denied ( M i n n . F e b . 1 6 , 2 0 1 0 ) . H e n z e d e n i e d

7
knowledge of the firearms and ammunition found in his bedroom. Thus, the only evidence
of Henze’s knowledge is circumstantial evidence of how and wher e police found the
firearms. The circumstantial evidence test applies.
The circumstances proved at trial relevant to Henze’s knowledge were: Henze lived
alone at the apartment for about ten years; Henze consented to a search of his apartment,
but he knew that his probation officer could search the apartment even without his consent;
while searching Henze’s bedroom, police found ammunition in a blue case in Henze’s sock
drawer; Henze used the sock drawer “quite often”; police found a gun safe in Henze’s
bedroom closet, and it was immediately visible when the closet was opened; the gun safe
was locked, but the key was in the keyhole; there were five firearms in the gun safe; Henze
admitted that he used the close t; police found a significant am ount of ammunition,
including a magazine, in dresser drawers in Henze’s bedroom; and much of the ammunition
did not match the firearms found in the safe. Henze’s testimony that he did not know about
the guns and ammunition is incons istent with the jury’s verdict and must therefore be
disregarded. See Harris, 895 N.W.2d at 601 (indicating that evidence inconsistent with
the jury’s verdict must be disregarded when applying the circumstantial evidence test).
We conclude that the circumstances proved are consistent with a finding that Henze
knew about the guns and ammunition in his bedroom and do not su pport any rational
hypothesis in which Henze did not know that the firearms and am munition were in his
bedroom. It is not rational to believe that Henze did not exam ine one entire side of his
bedroom closet, multiple bedroom dresser drawers, and the contents of a case in his sock
drawer for the ten years that he had lived alone in the apartment.

8
Henze argues that his consent to the search is evidence that he did not know about
the firearms and ammunition in his apartment. We are not persu aded. Henze admitted at
trial that he knew his probation officer could search his apart ment at any time. Thus, his
consent to a search carries little weight in determining whether Henze knowingly possessed
the firearms and ammunition cont ained therein. We affirm the c onviction because the
circumstantial evidence of knowing possession is sufficient to support the jury’s verdict.
II. The district court acted with in its discretion when it sent enced Henze to the
presumptive guidelines sentence.

Henze next argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion
for a downward dispositional depa rture based on his significant health problems and
amenability to probation.
We review the district court’s sentencing decision for an abuse of discretion. State
v. Law, 620 N.W.2d 562, 564-65 (Minn. App. 2000), review denied (Minn. Dec. 20, 2000).
The district court has “great discretion” in sentencing and “we cannot simply substitute our
judgment for that of the [district] court.” State v. Spain, 590 N.W.2d 85, 88 (Minn. 1999).
But “[a]ppellate courts may vacate or modify a sentence on many grounds, including that
the sentence is unreasonable or inappropriate, or that such a r esult is in the interest of
fairness and uniformity.” State v. Bertsch, 707 N.W.2d 660, 668 (Minn. 2006) (quotation
and citation omitted).
The sentences provided by the Mi nnesota Sentencing Guidelines a re presumed to
be appropriate. State v. Reece, 625 N.W.2d 822, 824 (Minn. 2001). It is only in “rare”
cases that an appellate court will reverse the district court’s refusal to depart because, even

9
when substantial and compelling ci rcumstances are present, the Minnesota Sentencing
Guidelines provide only that the district court may depart. State v. Kindem, 313 N.W.2d
6, 7 (Minn. 1981). If a defendant requests a downward dispositional departure, the district
court must consider the circumstances for and against departing . State v. Mendoza , 638
N.W.2d 480, 483 (Minn. App. 2002), review denied (Minn. Jan. 31, 2002).
A downward dispositional departure from a prison sentence to pr obation may be
justified if the defendant is particularly amenable to probation or if probation would be best
for the defendant and for society. State v. Heywood, 338 N.W.2d 243, 244 (Minn. 1983);
State v. Trog , 323 N.W.2d 28, 31 (Minn. 1982); State v. Wright , 310 N.W.2d 461, 463
(Minn. 1981). Factors that courts may consider in determining whether a defendant is
particularly amenable to probation include his “age, his prior record, his remorse, his
cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of fr iends and/or family.” Trog,
323 N.W.2d at 31.
Henze argued to the district cour t that his significant health concerns and his
amenability to probation supported a departure. On appeal, Hen ze argues that the
presumptive sentence that the court imposed was contrary to soc iety’s interest because it
was not compassionate and because the state will be required to pay for his healthcare. He
argues that the sentence was also contrary to his interest in b eing with his family in his
final days.
We conclude that the district court acted well within its discr etion in imposing the
presumptive sentence. The distric t court considered Henze’s se ntencing arguments and
expressed appropriate concern for Henze’s health. The court al so expressed legitimate

10
concern over Henze’s inability to comply with probation and pre trial release conditions,
and concern about the threat that Henze poses to public safety. As noted in the PSI, Henze
was on probation for third-degree assault when police found mul tiple firearms and
ammunition in his bedroom. In addition, while on pretrial cond itional release for the
current offense, Henze was charged with threats of violence and fifth-degree assault. And,
since April 2017, Henze had been placed in custody five times in connection with alleged
probation violations. The distr ict court’s concern regarding H enze’s inability to comply
with probation conditions and concern regarding public safety a re well supported by the
record.
Henze argues that the district court’s concern for public safet y was overstated
because Henze’s behavior could be curbed by the use of an alcoh ol monitor while on
probation. He argued to the district court and argues on appeal that his alcohol use caused
him to violate his probation conditions. There was some eviden ce that Henze was more
compliant with probation when he was subjected to an alcohol mo nitor.3 B u t , i n
recommending that the court impose the presumptive sentence, Adams opined that Henze
“has little regard for the orders of the [c]ourt, as evidenced b y h i s l a c k o f s u c c e s s o n
supervised probation and pre-trial release conditions.” Given Henze’s poor performance
on probation and pretrial conditional release, we conclude that the district court’s concerns

3 At an omnibus hearing, Adams indicated that the use of an alcohol monitor seemed to be
effective in keeping Henze from drinking alcohol.

11
were supported by the evidence in the record and that the distr ict court acted within its
discretion in sentencing Henze to the presumptive guidelines sentence.
Affirmed.