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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A19-0802

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Richard Preston Blackwell,
Appellant.

Filed March 16, 2020
Affirmed
Connolly, Judge

Ramsey County District Court
File No. 62-CR-18-8618

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

Lyndsey M. Olson, St. Paul City Attorney, Clifford R. Berg, John Penland, Assistant City
Attorneys, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Jennifer Lauermann, Assistant
Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Hooten, Presiding Judge; Connolly, Judge; and Reilly,
Judge.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
CONNOLLY, Judge
Appellant challenges his convictions for assault and disorderly conduct, arguing that
the evidence is insufficient to show that he had the specific intent to cause fear of bodily
harm required for assault and that the district court abused its discret ion by not adding the
names of store employees to the jury instruction for disorderly conduct. Because we see
sufficient evidence of appellant’s intent to cause fear of imme diate bodily harm and no
abuse of discretion in the jury instruction, we affirm.
FACTS
A Dollar Tree store posted at its entrance a policy that no one wearing a backpack
would be permitted in the store. In November 2018, appellant Richard Blackwell enter ed
the store wearing a backpack, and staff informed him that he could not wear it in the store.
He refused to remove the backpack, got into a cashier’s line to make a purchase, and began
swearing and yelling. Two staff members, J.C. and Q.L., confronted appellant. Appellant
flinched at Q.L. and went nose -to-nose with J.C., who pushed appellant away. Appellant
then grabbed J.C.’s arm and began to struggle. Q.L. tried to remove appellant from the
store to protect other customers and staff; appellant fought with him, then left the store and
stood outside swearing, yelling, and making a shooting gesture with his hands.
The police officer who arrived at the store in response to a phone call said that
appellant was apoplectic, screaming, swearing, and unable to answer questions. After
interviewing staff inside the store, the officer arrested appellant.

3
Appellant was charged with one count of fifth -degree misdemeanor assault —
infliction of bodily harm, one count of fifth-degree misdemeanor assault—intent to cause
fear of bodily harm , and with one count of disorderly conduct —loud and boisterous
conduct. Following trial, a jury convicted him of fifth-degree assault—intent to cause fear
of bodily harm and of disorderly conduct , but acquitted him of fifth degree assault—
infliction of bodily harm. Appellant was sentenced to 30 days in jail on the assault charge
and was not sentenced on the disorderly-conduct charge.
On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for the assault and the jury
instruction for the disorderly conduct.
D E C I S I O N
1. Sufficiency of the evidence of assault—intent to cause fear
When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence,
appellate courts carefully examine the record to determine
whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from
them would permit the jury to reasonably conclude that the
defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense
of which he was convicted. The evidence must be viewed in
the light most favorable to the verdict, and it must be assumed
that the fact -finder disbelieved any evidence that conflicted
with the verdict. The verdict will not be overturned if the fact-
finder, upon application of the presumption of innocence and
the State’s burden of proving an offense beyond a reason able
doubt, could reasonably have found the defendant guilty of the
charged offense.

State v. Griffin, 887 N.W.2d 257, 263 (Minn. 2016) (quotation and citations omitted). The
element of intent is generally proved circumstantially, by drawing inferences f rom the
defendant’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances. State v. Cooper,
561 N.W.2d 175, 179 (Minn. 1997). In reviewing the sufficiency of circumstantial

4
evidence, an appellate court first identifies the circumstances proved, then determines
whether the inferences from those circumstances are consistent with the defendant’s guilt
and inconsistent with any other rational hypothesis. State v. Silvernail, 831 N.W.2d 594,
598-99 (Minn. 2013). The appellate court also recognizes that the jury was in the best
position to evaluate the evidence. State v. Lahue , 585 N.W.2d 785 , 789 (Minn. 1998).
When the offense involves an intent to cause fear, the focal point is the intent of the actor,
not the effect on the victim. State v. Hough, 585 N.W.2d 393, 396 (Minn. 1998).
The store manager, S.D., testified that: (1) appellant “kept coming towards [J.C.],”
(2) she hea rd appellant say to J.C. “N -----, you’re not going to do nothing to me,”
(3) appellant looked as if he were going to hit J.C. when th ey were about a foot apart,
(4) J.C. hit appellant, (5) Q.L. tried to get appellant off J.C ., (6) “[O]nce [Q.L.] and [J.C.]
did get [appellant] outside, they came running back in. I locked the store door,” and finally
(7) appellant “sat outside [the store] screaming, yelling, telling my employees to co me
outside, he was going to f --- them up. He did the gun pointing thing at everybody, you
know, saying that we were goi ng to be arrested for assault .” The jury’s inference that
appellant intended to cause fear of bodily harm is supported by the circumstances proved
that he threatened the employees and made a shooting gesture.
Appellant argues that the evidence is also con sistent with the hypothesis that
appellant was merely trying to leave the store rather than remove his backpack. But J.C.
and Q.L. both testified that they wanted appellant to leave the store because he was
disturbing other customers; there is no evidence that anyone opposed his leaving the store.
Moreover, the fact that appellant remained outside the store where he swore and made

5
shooting gestures at those inside the store refutes his claim that he was motivated by a
desire to leave the store.
2. Jury instruction on disorderly conduct
“While district courts have broad discretion to formulate appropriate jury
instructions, a district court abuses its discretion if the jury instructions confuse, mislead,
or materially misst ate the law.” State v. Taylor , 8 69 N.W.2d 1, 14 -15 (Min n. 2015 )
(quotation omitted).
Appellant argues that the district court should have granted his request to name the
store employees in the disorderly-conduct jury instruction. The district court asked whether
the state would argue that appellant engaged in disorderly conduct toward the police
officers, and the state said it would not; the state’s argument was that appellant’s “conduct
toward the store staff; the yelling and the swearing and the threatening to the store staff”
was disorderly conduct. The district court then denied appellant’s request that employees
J.C., Q.L., and S.D. be named in the jury instruction, saying
I’m not going to include any individual people here.
There’s no specific requirement that folks were actua lly
alarmed, angered or that resentment was aroused in them. The
standard here is that the conduct or language would tend
reasonably to do that. So I’m not going to name specific
individuals in the disorderly conduct charge.

Appellant argues that his t heory of the case was that “his conduct . . . was not
alarming or frightening to the store employees.” But, as the district court observed,
whether anyone was actually alarmed or frightened is not an element of disorderly conduct.

6
The jury was instructed:
Under Minnesota law, whoever in a public or private
place, knowing or having reasonable grounds to know that it
will or will tend to alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke an
assault or breach of the peace engages in offensive, obscene,
abusive, boisterous or noisy conduct or in offensive, obscene,
or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger
or resentment in others is guilty of a crime.

The [four] elements of Disorderly Conduct are, first, the
defendant engaged in offensive, obsce ne, abusive, boisterous
or noisy conduct or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language
tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger or resentment in
others.

. . . The offense may be based upon the utterance of
fighting words alone without resulting in actual violence. The
focus is upon the nature of the words and the circumstances in
which they were spoken rather than upon the actual response.

Second, the defendant knew or had reasonable grounds
to know that the conduct would or could tend to alarm, anger,
disturb, provoke an assault by or provoke a breach of the peace
by others. ‘To know’ requires only that the actor believes that
the specified fact exists. ‘Had reason to know’ means that the
defendant acted in conscious disregard of a substantial and
unjustifiable risk that the specified fact exists or will result
from his conduct. ‘In conscious disregard of a substantial and
unjustifiable risk’ means that the defendant was aware that,
one, there was a risk that the specified fact exists or will result
from his conduct; two, the risk was substantial; three, there was
no adequate reason for taking the risk; and four, the defendant
disregarded the risk.

Third, the defendant’s act took place in a public or
private place.

Four, the defendant’s act took place on November 30,
2018 in Ramsey County.

7
Appellant argues that he is entitled to a new trial because not naming the employees
in the jury instruction was an error that affected the jury’s verdict by causing “the jury to
convict [him] of disorderly conduct against the store’s customers because of multiple
witnesses who testified as to whether the customers were upset by [his] conduct. Had the
district court included the names of the store employees, the jury may have a cquitted
[appellant] of the [disorderly conduct] charge.” But the question before the jury was
whether appellant committed the conduct requisite for the crime, not whether store
employees, or anyone else, reacted to that conduct. Therefore, the district court’s
instruction did not misstate the law.
Affirmed.