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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A18-1196

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Tanya Jo Eidhammer,
Appellant.

Filed April 8, 2019
Affirmed
Reilly, Judge

Cottonwood County District Court
File No. 17-CR-17-338

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

Nicholas Anderson, Cottonwood County Attorney, Windon, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Davi E. Axelson, Assistant Public
Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Reilly, Presiding Judge; Rodenberg, Judge, Bratvold,
Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
REILLY, Judge
Appellant argues that the district court improperly excluded evidence and testimony
at trial. We affirm.

2
FACTS
Appellant Tanya Jo Eidhammer was in a romantic relationship with E.M. for
approximately two years. During the relationship, Eidhammer used a Honda Accord,
owned solely by E.M., and had her own key to the car. Eidhammer and E.M. lived together
in Mountain Lake until the relationship ended in mid -July 2017. On July 17, 2017, the
couple had an argument about the Accord. E.M. called the police and an officer responded
to assist with the conflict. E.M. agreed to allow Eidhammer to use the Accord until July
20 to accommodate a medical appointment for Eidhammer’s daughter. Eidhammer agreed
to return both the Accord and her key to the car on July 20. On the agreed upon date, E.M.
went to the Mountain Lake house to retrieve the Accord, but it was not there. The next
day, E.M. reported the Accord stolen to the Mountain Lake Police Department.
On July 26, the Mountain Lake police saw the Accord outside of the Mountain Lake
house. The officer approached Eidhammer, who was standing by the Accord, and told her
that she could not take the Accord because it had been reported stolen. Eidhammer claimed
her key to the Accord was in its center console, but the officer could not find it after
searching that location. Ultimately, E.M. had to have the Accord towed. Respondent State
of Minnesota then charged Eidhammer with theft of a motor vehicle in violation of Minn.
Stat. § 609.52, subd. 2(a)(17) (2016). The case proceeded to a jury trial.
At trial, Eidhammer planned to introduce four pages of text messages sent between
E.M. and herself. 1 Before trial, the state moved to exclude the text messages on both

1 The four pages of text messages appeared to be screen shots from Eidhammer’s cell
phone. We note that two pages of text messages indicated that the communications

3
relevance and foundation grounds. The district court heard arguments from both parties
regarding the text messages. Eidhammer’s attorney admitted th at “there would be an
evidentiary problem” if the text messages were offered as an exhibit, and withdrew his
request but indicated that he still wished to question E.M. regarding the text messages. The
district court granted the state’s motion to prohibit the admission of the text messages as
exhibits but reserved ruling on the relevance of any testimony regarding the text messages
until it was elicited. The defense did not question E.M. regarding the text messages during
trial. At the conclusion of trial, the jury found Eidhammer guilty.
Eidhammer now appeals.
D E C I S I O N
I. The District Court Did Not Exclude Testimony Regarding Text Messages.
Eidhammer challenges the district court’s alleged exclusion of relevant testimony
at trial. Though the district court granted the state’s motion to exclude the text messages
from being admitted as evidence, the district court stated that it would “rule on the issue of
relevance of testimony when that testimony comes around,” and reiterated that “testimony
[would] have to be dealt with at the time it is offered.” However, Eidhammer’s trial counsel
never inquired about the text messages during cross-examination.
This court will consider an issue not raised before the district court if it constitutes
plain error.
The United States Supreme Court has established a
three-prong test for plain error, requiring that before an

occurred in March 2017, one page indicated that the communications occurred in June
2017, and the last page of text messages was undated.

4
appellate court reviews an unobjected -to error, there must be
(1) error; (2) that is plain; and (3) the error must affect
substantial rights. 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.

State v. Griller , 583 N.W.2d 736, 740 (Minn. 1998). “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). Because Eidhammer’s trial counsel never asked E.M. about the text messages
during cross -examination, and therefore the district court never made a ruling on the
relevance of any testimony, we determine that no error occurred.
II. Eidhammer Has Not Met Her Burden to Show Prejudice.
It is unclear from Eidhammer’s brief if she also contests the district court’s
evidentiary ruling on the admissibility of the text messages. To the extent Eidhammer
does, we reject her argument. We note that Eidhammer’s trial counsel admitted that “there
would be an evidentiary problem” if the text mes sages were offered as exhibits, and
explicitly withdrew his intention to offer the text messages as an exhibit on the record. We
nevertheless review the district court’s decision for an abuse of its discretion.
Generally, evidentiary rulings rest within t he sound discretion of the district court
and will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion. State v. Amos, 658 N.W.2d 201,
203 (Minn. 2003). A criminal defendant has a constitutional right to a meaningful
opportunity to present a complete defense. California v. Trombetta , 467 U.S. 479, 485,
104 S. Ct. 2528, 2532 (1984); State v. Richards, 495 N.W.2d 187, 191 (Minn. 1992). “But
this right is n ot absolute” as “[c]riminal defendants are bound by the rules of evidence,

5
which are designed to assure fairness and reliability in ascertaining guilt or innocence.”
State v. Wilson , 900 N.W.2d 373, 384 (Minn. 2017) (citations omitted). Even where a
criminal defendant alleges that the inability to present a defense violates his constitutional
rights, evidentiary questions are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Id. (citing State v.
Henderson, 620 N.W.2d 688, 698 (Minn. 2001)). Therefore, appellant has the burden of
establishing that the district court abused its discretion and that ap pellant was thereby
prejudiced. Amos, 658 N.W.2d at 203; State v. Hall, 764 N.W.2d 837, 841 (Minn. 2009).
Eidhammer has not met her burden to show that the district court abused its
discretion and that she was thereby prejudiced. This court may consider the strength of
each party’s evidence when determining whether admitting excluded evidence would have
led to a different result. State v. Zumberge, 888 N.W.2d 688, 697 (Minn. 2017). Here, an
officer testified that in July he responded to a dispute regarding the Accord, and that he
brokered a deal between E.M. and Eidhammer for her temporary continued use of the
Accord until July 20. The state also presented evidence that on July 26, Eidhammer told
another officer that she did not return the Accord on the agreed upon date because she
could not reach E.M. She did not tell the officer that she thought that she could continue
to use the Accord. The state also presented evide nce that Eidhammer did not return the
key as initially agreed upon. Therefore, even if the district court had erroneously excluded
the text messages, that decision was harmless.
Affirmed.