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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A19-1231

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Jason John Gascoigne,
Appellant.

Filed June 29, 2020
Affirmed
Jesson, Judge

Goodhue County District Court
File No. 25-CR-17-2711

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

Stephen F. O’Keefe, Goodhue County Attorney, Christopher J. Schrader, Assistant County
Attorney, Red Wing, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Sara L. Martin, Assistant Public
Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decide d by Worke, Presiding Judge; Hooten, Judge; and
Jesson, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
JESSON, Judge
After appellant Jason John Gascoigne was arrested at a self-service car wash, police
discovered two jeweler’s bags containing methamphetamine in hi s wallet and car.

2
Gascoigne challenges his subsequent convicti on of fifth-degree drug possession, arguing
that the district court abused its discretion by admitting photographs of the bags of drugs.
Gascoigne also advances several arguments in his pro se supplemental brief. Because the
district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the photos, and Gascoigne’s pro se
arguments do not merit relief, we affirm.
FACTS
In October 2017, just after 4:00 a.m., a police officer observed a man digging in the
trunk of a car parked in a self-service car wash in Zumbrota, Minn esota. The officer
discovered that the registered owner of the car, appellant Jason John Gascoigne, had an
active warrant. While calling Gascoigne’s name, the officer approached him and informed
him he was being arrested on the warrant. Two more officers arrived to assist the first
officer.
During a search of his pockets, police re moved Gascoigne’s wallet. After putting
Gascoigne in the back seat of a squad vehi cle, police looked through Gascoigne’s wallet
and discovered a clear plastic jeweler’s bag co ntaining a white substance. A field-test
revealed that the substance tested positive for methamphetamine. Police photographed the
bag.
After finding methamphetamine in Gascoigne ’s wallet, police searched his car. In
his car, police found a second clear plastic jeweler’s bag containing a white powdery
substance and a broken lightbulb with white residue inside. Th ese items also field-tested
positive for methamphetamines. Police photogra phed these items as we ll. After finding

3
the drugs, police asked Gascoigne about them, and he admitte d that he used
methamphetamine.
The state charged Gascoigne with fift h-degree drug possession, a felony, and
possession of drug paraphernalia, a petty mi sdemeanor. During his first appearance,
Gascoigne appeared pro se. He had applie d for a public defender but did not qualify
because he did not meet the income requirement.1
During a two-day jury trial, Gascoigne re presented himself. The parties discussed
their planned exhibits outside the presence of the jury. Relevant to this appeal, the state
expressed its intention to offe r into evidence the photographs police took of the bags of
drugs. Gascoigne requested that “the actual physical evidence” be admitted, meaning the
actual bags with drugs. The court stated th at, “in these types of cases, photographs are
sufficient” as long as they are authenticat ed, and it permitted the state to offer the
photographs.2
At trial, a police officer and a forensic scientist from the Bu reau of Criminal
Apprehension (BCA) testified for the state. The officer testified about his encounter with
Gascoigne, including discove ring the drugs and Gascoign e admitting that he used
methamphetamine. The officer also testifie d that he took initial weights of the two
jeweler’s bags and they weighe d 0.71 grams and 1.24 grams, including the weight of the
bags.

1 Gascoigne later qualified for a public defender but declined representation.
2 Later, when the state was seeking to adm it the photographs, Gascoigne objected and
explained, “I would like for them to actually see the actual evidence—physical evidence.”
But the court overruled his objection and permitted admission of the photos.

4
Next, the forensic scientist testified. Sh e explained that she received a substance
from the officer to test and it weighed 0.263 plus or minus 0.005 grams. When asked, she
stated that it was “not possible” that the scale was “off.” And her testing of the substance
revealed that it contained methamphetamine.
Once the state rested, Gascoigne testified. He explained why he relapsed and was
using methamphetamine. On cross-examination, he admitted that the bags of drugs were
his, that the bags contained methamphetamine , and that he had used the lightbulb police
found to ingest the drug. And he agre ed that he had a prior conviction for a
controlled-substance offense.3
The jury found Gascoigne guilty on both counts. At se ntencing, the court stayed
execution of a 13-month prison sentence fo r fifth-degree drug possession, placed
Gascoigne on probation for five years, ordered him to serve 31 days in jail (the amount of
jail credit he had), and required him to comp lete 50 hours of community service, among
other conditions. Gascoigne appeals.
D E C I S I O N
I. The district court did not abuse its di scretion by admitting photographs of the
drug bags at trial.

Gascoigne challenges the district court’s admission of the photographs of the drug
bags at trial. Because evidentiary rulings re st within the sound discretion of the district
court, we will not reverse an evidentiary ruling unless the court clearly abused its
discretion. State v. Ali, 855 N.W.2d 235, 249 (Minn. 2014 ). And even if a court abused

3 The court also received a certified copy of this conviction at trial.

5
its discretion in admitting certain evidence, re versal is not required unless the appellant
proves that he was prejudiced by the ruling. State v. Moua , 678 N.W.2d 29, 37
(Minn. 2004). Said another way, we w ill only reverse when an evidentiary error
“substantially influences the jury’s decision.” Id. (quotation omitted). This applies to
evidentiary rulings on the admi ssibility of photographs. See State v. Dame ,
670 N.W.2d 261, 264 (Minn. 2003).
Generally, photographs are admissible if they are accurate and “relevant to a
material issue.” State v. Bjornson , 378 N.W.2d 4, 9 (Minn. App. 1985), review denied
(Minn. Jan. 17, 1986). Relevant evidence is that which has any tendency to make a material
fact more or less likely. Minn. R. Evid. 401. Photographs are also admissible as a helpful
visual aid to a verbal descrip tion of evidence by a witness. See State v. Hummel ,
483 N.W.2d 68, 74 (Minn. 1992); State v. DeZeler, 41 N.W.2d 313, 319 (Minn. 1950).
Here, the officer who took the photos tes tified that they fairly and accurately
reflected the bags of drugs he discovered. The officer also described the contents of each
photo including where he found the items and how he handled th e bags, including his
field-testing and weighing. A nd because a key issue for the jury to decide was whether
Gascoigne possessed methamphetamine, photos of the methamphetamine taken from his
wallet and car are relevant to that material fa ct. Thus, the district court did not abuse its
discretion in admitting these photographs at trial.
Yet, according to Gascoigne, the district court erred by admitting the photos because
the photos may have misled the jury as to the weight of the methamphetamine, which was
an element of the crime. But the photos were not the only evidence of the amount of the

6
drugs: the officer and the BCA scientist testified about the we ight of the drugs with and
without the bags. And the scientist’s report supported her measurements. Consequently,
there was additional evidence admitted about the weight of the methamphetamine, which
lessened the possibility that the jury was misled about the weight based on the photos alone.
We further observe that even if the district court erred by admitting the photographs,
Gascoigne’s prior drug conviction is altern atively sufficient to convict him of felony
fifth-degree possession. See Minn. Stat. § 152.025, subds. 2(1), 4 (2016). To be convicted
of felony fifth-degree drug possession, the st ate had to prove that Gascoigne unlawfully
possessed a mixture containing methamphetamine, and that the mixture was either at least
0.25 grams or that Gascoigne had been previously convicted of a drug crime. See id. Either
the weight or a prior conviction is sufficien t to classify this offense as a felony.
Accordingly, Gascoigne’s prior convic tion and his possession of any amount of
methamphetamine—regardless of the weight—w as sufficient to convict him for felony
fifth-degree drug possession.
In sum, the district court did not abuse its discretion by adm itting photographs of
the drug bags at trial. And Gascoigne’s admitted prior conviction and his possession of
any methamphetamine was sufficient for the jury to determine his guilt for the offense.
II. Gascoigne’s pro se arguments do not merit relief.
Gascoigne advances several arguments in his pro se supplemental brief. These
include alleged violations of several rights: to counsel, to free speech, to a fair jury of his
peers, to an impartial decision-maker, to conf ront and call witnesses, and to be free from
excessive bail. But many of these arguments were not presented to the district court so we

7
decline to address them here. See Roby v. State, 547 N.W.2d 354, 357 (Minn. 1996) (“This
court generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court.”).
And Gascoigne’s arguments generally la cked relevant legal authority. See
State v. Andersen, 871 N.W.2d 910, 915 (Minn. 2015 ) (explaining that arguments based
merely on assertions and not supported by argument or legal authority are waived “unless
prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection” (quotation omitted)).
In sum, Gascoigne’s pro se supplemental i ssues do not merit relief. The district
court did not abuse its discretion by admitting photographs of the drug bags at trial. And
even if there were some error in the admission of the photos , the weight of the drugs was
inconsequential in light of Gascoigne’s prior drug conviction.
Affirmed.