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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A18-1450

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Kyle Delane Johnson,
Appellant.

Filed July 15, 2019
Affirmed
Halbrooks, Judge

Crow Wing County District Court
File No. 18-CR-18-1622

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

Donald F. Ryan, Crow Wing County Attorney, Brainerd, Scott A. Hersey, Special
Assistant County Attorney, Minnesota County Attorneys Association, St. Paul, Minnesota
(for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Jenna Yauch-Erickson, Assistant
Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Halbrooks, Presiding Judge; Slieter, Judge; and
Klaphake, 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
HALBROOKS, Judge
Appellant challenges his conviction of domestic assault, arguing that the district
court abused its discretion by admitting relationship evidence. We affirm.
FACTS
On April 17, 2018, 17 -year-old M.E. was getting ready for bed when she heard
people screaming outside. She looked out the window and observed a man and woman in
the alley behind her house. They were using profane language, and the woman was hitting
the man on the chest in order to push him away. M.E. heard the man say, “You don’t
deserve to be wearing my hat,” as he removed a hat from the woman’s head. After that,
M.E. observed the man grab the woman’s hair “and start[] whipping her hair around .”
According to M.E., the woman’s “body followed but she didn’t fall.” The woman started
crying. M.E. called 911 to report what she had witnessed and provide descriptions of the
individuals.
When Officer Tim Friis of the Brainerd Police Department responded to the 911
call, he observed a man in the area who matched the description provided by M.E. The
man was identified as appellant Kyle Delane Johnson. Law enforcement subsequently
located the woman involved in t he altercation and identified her as K.S.A., Johnson’s
girlfriend. Johnson indicated that he had been in a fight with someone else earlier that day
and that “displaced aggression” caused him to later argue with K.S.A. But he denied
physically assaulting K.S.A. Officer Friis arrested Johnson, and , during a search incident

3
to arrest , discovered a small plastic bag of a white substance that he believed to be
methamphetamine. The substance later tested positive for methamphetamine.
Respondent State of Minnesota charged Johnson with felony domestic assault, fifth-
degree controlled-substance crime, and disorderly conduct.1 Prior to trial, the state moved
in limine to admit relationship evidence, including recordings of nine jail communications
between Johnson and K.S.A. The district court ruled that the recordings were admissible
as relationship evidence.
Following a court trial, the district court found Johnson guilty of domestic assault
and fifth-degree controlled-substance crime. The district co urt credited M.E.’s testimony
that Johnson grabbed K.S.A.’s hair and then “whipped her head around.” The district court
did not find K.S.A.’s trial testimony to be credible because it was “grossly contradictory”
to what she told law enforcement and the pu blic defender investigator about the incident.
After the district court announced the verdict, Johnson waived a presentence investigation
and requested immediate sentencing. The district court sentenced Johnson to concurrent
terms of 30 months for domest ic assault and 21 months for fifth -degree controlled -
substance crime. This appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
Johnson contends that the district court erred by admitting evidence of the jail
communications between K.S.A. and himself because they were not “d omestic conduct”
as defined by the statute. We review a district court’s admission of relationship evidence

1 The disorderly conduct charge was dismissed prior to trial.

4
for abuse of discretion. State v. Lindsey, 755 N.W.2d 752, 755 (Minn. App. 2008), review
denied (Minn. Oct. 29, 2008). To be entitled to relief, an appellant must show that the
district court abused its discretion and that he was prejudiced as a result. Id.
Minnesota law has two bases for the admission of relationship evidence —Minn.
Stat. § 634.20 (2016) and the common law . A district court may admit evidence of
“domestic conduct” by a defendant unless the probative value of the evidence is
“substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice” to the defendant, “or by
considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation o f cumulative
evidence.” Minn. Stat. § 634.20. Under the statute:
“Domestic conduct” includes, but is not limited to, evidence of
domestic abuse, violation of an order for protection under
section 518B.01; violation of a harassment restraining order
under section 609.748; or violation of section 609.749 or
609.79, subdivision 1. “Domestic abuse” and “family or
household members” have the meanings given under section
518B.01, subdivision 2.

Id.
Under caselaw, relationship evidence may be offered to “show the strained
relationship between the accused and the victim” and is especially probative when it
contextualizes the charged incident. State v. Hormann, 805 N.W.2d 883, 890 (Minn. App.
2011), review denied (Minn. Jan. 17, 2012) (quotation omitted). Relationship evidence
admitted under Minn. Stat. § 634.20 is a “subtype” of the broader category of relationship
evidence that is admissible under caselaw. State v. Bell, 719 N.W.2d 635, 638 n.4 (Minn.
2006).

5
Johnson argues that the district court abus ed its discretion by determining that the
jail communications were admissible under Minn. Stat. § 634.20. He asserts that the
prosecutor sought admission only under the statute, not based on c aselaw, and therefore
we must analyze the admission solely under the statute. The state argues that the prosecutor
sought admission under both Minn. Stat. § 634.20 and caselaw. We agree with the state.
The state’s motion in limine contains two paragraphs addressing the admissibility
of the jail communications as r elationship evidence. The first explicitly reference s
admission of the evidence under Minn. Stat. § 634.20. But the following paragraph
requests that the state be generally permitted to “introduce evidence regarding the history
of the relationship betwee n the defendant and the victim,” including evidence of the
incidents listed in the above paragraph. During the pretrial motion hearing, the prosecutor
addressed admission under Minn. Stat. § 634.20, and then stated, “Also, relationship
evidence can be use d to show the strained relationship between the parties, can show the
stresses involved in the parties’ relationship. It’ s evidence that helps establish the
relationship in which places the event in context.” This argument addresses the
requirements for the admission of relationship evidence established by caselaw. See
Hormann, 805 N.W.2d at 890 (stating that Minnesota caselaw permits the admission of
relationship evidence to show the strained relationship between the parties and to place the
charged event into proper context).
We conclude that the district court admitted the relationship evidence under both
Minn. Stat. § 634.20 and caselaw. And because caselaw addresses the admission of a
broader range of relatio nship evidence, we will analyze the adm ission of the jail

6
communications as relationship evidence under caselaw. See Bell, 719 N.W.2d at 638 n.4.
Relationship evidence is admissible under caselaw when it shows evidence of a strained
relationship and helps to place the charged incident into pr oper context. State v. Loving,
775 N.W.2d 872, 880 (Minn. 2009). Relationship evidence also assists the fact -finder in
assessing witness credibility. State v. Matthews, 779 N.W.2d 543, 549 (Minn. 2010). Here,
the jail recordings served that function.
As the district court noted, the communications reflected behavior on the part of
Johnson that was “antagonistic, hostile, aggressive, threatening, demeaning, which would
be within the heart of relationship evidence.” During the recordings, Johnson is aggressive
and controlling, and consistently berates K.S.A. and orders her to pawn her jewelry or
panhandle to get money to deposit in his jail account. He accuses her of lying to and
cheating on him and encourages her to try to get the charges against him d ropped. Thus,
the relationship evidence reflected a strained relationship between Johnson and K.S.A.
In addition to showing the strained relationship between Johnson and K.S.A., the
jail communications put the charged incident into context and assiste d the fact -finder in
assessing witness credibility. K.S.A. initially lied to the police and said that she and
Johnson were not romantically involved , in the hope of avoiding charges being brought .
She later attempted to get the charges dropped and ultimately testified that Johnson had not
assaulted her. At trial, Amber Laffin, an expert in domestic-violence victims, testified that
victims of domestic abuse often avoid reporting incidents because they fear their partner’s
coercive, threatening, and hostile behavior. By showing a strained relationship and
Johnson’s history of threatening and hostile behavior, the jail communications helped put

7
the charged event and K.S.A.’s behavior into context and assisted the district court in
evaluating witness credibility.
Johnson next asserts that the district court abused its discretion by admitting the
relationship evidence because the potential for unfair prejudice outweighed its probative
value. As discussed, the relationship evidence had substantial probative value. And we
are not persuaded by Johnson’s argument that the evidence was unfairly prejudicial
because it reflected poorly on him “as a person and a romantic partner” and “invited the
fact-finder to draw a propensity inference that . . . Johnson was li kely guilty because he
was generally a bad boyfriend.” The purpose of relationship evidence is to show a strained
relationship between the defendant and victim, and therefore the mere fact that it reflects
poorly on the defendant is not a basis to exclude it. And we note that Johnson was tried by
the district court, rather than a jury, which further reduces the chance that the evidence was
used for an improper purpose. State v. Burrell, 772 N.W.2d 459, 467 (Minn. 2009). On
this record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the
jail communications as relationship evidence.
Finally, we note that, even if the evidence was erroneously admitted, Johnson must
show that he was prejudiced as a result. Lindsey, 755 N.W.2d at 755. The erroneous
admission of evidence is harmless if there is no reasonable probability that the evidence
significantly affected the verdict. State v. Holliday, 745 N.W.2d 556, 568 (Minn. 2008).
The district co urt’s written findings of guilt explicitly state that the district court found
Johnson guilty of domestic assault “based on the evidence admitted as to the April 17, 2018
incident without the relati onship evidence.” While t he district court stated that the

8
relationship evidence “shed[s] light on the ongoing relationship between Mr. Johnson and
K.S.A.,” it noted unequivocally that the verdict was not based on the relationship evidence.
Consequently, Johnson cannot establish that he was prejudiced by the admission of the jail
communications.
Affirmed.