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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A19-1858

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

James Zlanworse Seekie,
Appellant.

Filed October 12, 2020
Affirmed
Frisch, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File Nos. 27-CR-19-270, 27-CR-19-271, 27-CR-19-2517

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

Gary K. Luloff, Heidi M. Torvik, Chestnut Cambronne PA, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for
respondent)

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

Considered and decided by Frisch, Presiding Judge; Reilly, Judge; and Reyes,
Judge.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
FRISCH, Judge
Appellant challenges his convictions of violating an order for protection (OFP) ,
arguing that the district court erred by suppressing evidence intended to challenge the
underlying OFP and by admitting evidence of prior bad acts. We affirm.
FACTS
On November 15, 2018, the district court granted victim’s petition for an OFP and
served appellant James Zlanworse Seekie with an order prohibiting him from direct or
indirect contact with victim. Shortly thereafter, victim reported that Seekie called and sent
text messages to her. Seekie told the responding officer that he understood he should not
have contacted victim and would not contact her again. At a later date, Seekie sent text
messages to victim’s mother and threatened to release damaging information about victim
unless victim agreed to revisit the OFP. Seekie also moved the district court for
reconsideration of the OFP and mailed victim a copy of the motion. Victim reported these
additional contacts to law enforcement . Seekie told the responding officer that he
intentionally violated the OFP because he was upset about its conditions and wanted to go
back to court.
On January 4, 2019, the state filed two misdemeanor complaints against Seekie for
violation of the OFP pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 14(b) (2018). Soon
thereafter, victim reported receiving additional text messages and phone calls from Seekie.
On January 28, 2019, the state tab -charged Seekie with an additional misdemeanor count
of violating the OFP.

3
The parties agreed to consolidate the charges for trial. Seekie attempted to subpoena
lawyers and judicial officers involved in the original OFP proceedings. In response, t he
state moved to preclude Seekie from arguing that the OFP should not have b een granted.
The district court granted the state’s motion.
Victim and the responding officers testified at trial . Early in victim’s direct
examination, the state asked victim why she had petitioned for an OFP. Victim responded
by recounting an incident in which Seekie physically abused her and later sent threatening
text messages to her. Seekie did not object to this testimony.
The state also introduced copies of the OFP into evidence to establish its restrictions.
The OFP recited victim’s allegations that Seekie had abused and threatened her as well as
Seekie’s denial of the allegations . The district court asked Seekie whether he objected to
admission of the OFP, and he responded, “No.” Neither party requested any redaction of
the OFP.
During trial, Seekie repeatedly attempted to introduce evidence challenging the
OFP. The state objected to the evidence, and the district court sustained those objections.
The jury found Seekie guilty of all charges. This appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
I. The district court did not deny Seekie the right to present a complete defense.
Seekie first argues that the district court erred by suppressing evidence challenging
the validity of the underlying OFP and therefore denied him the right to contest an element
of the charged offenses.

4
Due process requires that every defendant be given “a meaningful opportunity to
present a complete defense.” State v. Richards , 495 N.W.2d 187, 191 (Minn. 1992)
(quoting California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485, 104 S. Ct. 2528, 2532 (1984)); accord
U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1; Minn. Const. art. I, § 7 . “To vindicate these rights, courts
must allow defendants to present evidence that is material and favorable to their theory of
the case.” State v. Crims, 540 N.W.2d 860, 865 (Minn. App. 1995), review denied (Minn.
Jan. 23, 1996). However, a defendant does not have a right to introduce irrelevant
evidence. Id.; see also Minn. R. Evid. 402 (“ Evidence which is not relevant is not
admissible.”). Evidence is relevant when it has “any tendency to make the existence of
any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less
probable than it would be without the evidence.” Minn. R. Evid. 401.
Even when excluded evid ence affects a defendant’s right to present a complete
defense, we review an evidentiary ruling for an abuse of discretion. State v. Penkaty, 708
N.W.2d 185, 201 (Minn. 2006). We defer to a district court’s “wide discretion in matters
concerning the relevancy of evidence.” State v. Davis, 685 N.W.2d 442, 446 (Minn. App.
2004), review denied (Minn. Oct. 27, 2004).
The evidence Seekie attempted to introduce to challenge the validity of the
underlying OFP is not relevant to any element of the crime. The applicable statute
provides: “whenever an order for protection is granted by a judge[,] . . . and the respondent
or person to be restrained knows of the existence of the order, violation of the order for
protection is a misdemeanor.” Minn. Stat. § 518B.01 , subd. 14(b) (emphasis added).
Accordingly, the elements of the charged crime are that (1) an OFP was in effect, (2) the

5
defendant knew of the order, and (3) the defendant violated a term or condition of the order.
See id. A defendant’s disagreement with the underlying order is not an element or defense.1
See State v. Romine, 757 N.W.2d 884, 890 (Minn. App. 2008) (rejecting a collateral attack
to validity of an OFP), review denied (Minn. Feb. 17, 2009).
Seekie argues that the “validity” of an OFP is an implicit element of the crime of
violating an OFP. Although Seekie does not specify on appeal why the OFP was invalid,
our review of the record shows that Seekie conceded at trial that the OFP was a binding
court order. As set forth in his subpoenas, Seekie desired to use his trial as “a platform to
express the need for reforming the criminal justice system.”2 During trial, he attempted to
present testimony that the justice system had failed him and emphasized that the OFP
limited his access to the child he shares with victim. In other words, Seekie did not
challenge whether the OFP was enforceable but instead argued that the issuance of the OFP
was unwarranted. We agree with the district court that this evidence is not probative of
whether Seekie committed the criminal act of violating the OFP. Accordingly, the district
court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that evidence challenging the validity of a
binding OFP was irrelevant.

1 Seekie relies on our nonprecedential opinion in State v. Rodriguez , No. A07-2179,
2009 WL 233869 (Minn. App. F eb. 3, 2009). But in Rodriguez, we addressed whether a
subsequent order quashed an OFP, not whether an OFP was wrongly issued.
2009 WL 233869, at *2. Here, Seekie does not claim that the district court issued any
subsequent order negating the effectiveness of the OFP.

2 The right to present a complete defense arguably includes a defendant’s “right to explain
[his] conduct to a jury.” State v. Wiltse , 386 N.W.2d 315, 317 (Minn. App. 1986)
(quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. June 30, 1986). Here, the district court allowed
Seekie to testify extensively about his personal motives.

6
II. Any evidentiary errors did not affect Seekie’s substantial rights.
Seekie also argues that the district court committed reversible error by admitting
into evidence unredacted copies of the OFP and by allowing victim to testify that Seekie
had abused her. Seekie admits that he did not object to the introduction of any of this
evidence at trial.
When a party fails to object to the admission of evidence at trial, the party generally
forfeits the right to appeal admission of that evidence. State v. Vasquez, 912 N.W.2d 642,
649 (Minn. 2018). However, we retain discretion to review the evidentiary ruling for plain
error affecting substantial rights. Minn. R. Crim. P. 31.02; State v. Griller , 583 N.W.2d
736, 740 (Minn. 1998). Plain error exists when a district court commits (1) an error (2) that
was plain and (3) that affected the defe ndant’s substantial rights. Griller, 583 N.W.2d at
740. If all three requirements exist establishing plain error, we may reverse if the error
affected the fairness and integrity of judicial proceedings. State v. Strommen, 648 N.W.2d
681, 686 (Minn. 2002). The defendant bears the burden of establishing by a reasonable
likelihood that the absence of the alleged error would have affected the jury’s verdict. State
v. Horst, 880 N.W.2d 24, 38 (Minn. 2016).
We need not address whether the district court plainly erred, because we conclude
that any error did not affect Seekie’s substantial rights. See State v. Webster, 894 N.W.2d
782, 78 6 (Minn. 2017) (explaining that if an y requirement of plain -error doctrine is
unsatisfied, we need not consider remaining requirements). An evidentiary error does not
affect a defendant’s substantial rights where overwhelming evidence of guilt otherwise
exists. State v. Noor, 907 N.W.2d 646, 657 (Minn. App. 2018), review denied (Minn. Apr.

7
25, 2018). Here, the state presented overwhelming evidence of Seekie’s guilt with respect
to all charges.
As to the first charge, victim testified that Seekie sent text messages in violation of
the OFP. The responding officer verified that Seekie sent text messages and made phone
calls after the OFP had been issued. The officer testified that Seekie admitted contacting
victim in violation of the OFP.
As to the second charge, victim testified that she received a letter from Seekie’s
address and that Se ekie sent text messages to her family in December 2018 . The
responding officer reviewed the messages, in which Seekie attempted to convince victim’s
mother to encourage victim to seek dismissal of the OFP. The officer further testified that
Seekie admitted that he intentionally violated the OFP and “that he had contacted some
people requesting that they would contact [victim] to get her to essentially go back to
court.”
As to the third charge, victim testified that she received text messages and phone
calls from Seekie in January 2019 . The responding officer testified that he verified those
messages and calls.
Seekie produced little evidence to contest whether he violated the OFP and only
attempted to introduce evidence relevant to the second charge. First, Seekie contended that
the letter victim received was addressed to a judge. Second, Seekie argued that the officer
did not verify with victim’s mother that she received text messages from Seekie and instead
relied on the messages as displayed on victim’s phone. Seekie’s primary argument at trial
was that the OFP itself was unjust —an issue not relevant to any element of the crime .

8
Further, the OFP itself contains findings favorable to Seekie, describing “credible evidence
. . . that [victim’s] testimony was not true and motivated by wanting to punish [Seekie] for
not agreeing to marry her” and concluding that victim failed to establish by the
preponderance of the evidence that physical abuse occurred. Indeed, at trial, Seekie
instructed victim to read these passages from the OFP to the jury in an attempt to cast doubt
on her credibility.
Because any evidentiary errors did not affect Seekie’s substantial rights, we decline
to order a new trial.
Affirmed.