State of Minnesota, Respondent,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A20-0323

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

John Chrystopher Murdock,
Appellant.

Filed February 16, 2021
Affirmed
Ross, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-CR-18-27946

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

Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Nicole Cornale, Assistant County
Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

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

Considered and decided by Florey, Presiding Judge; Segal, Chief Judge; and Ross,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL
ROSS, Judge
The state accused John Murdock of sexually assaulting an 11 -year-old girl and
charged him with first-degree criminal sexual conduct. The district court conducted a bench
trial and, after the victim testified about the timing of the conduct, allowed the state to
2
amend the complaint’s date of offense from “on or about” a specific date to “on or about”
a range of three years that ended with a specific date. On appeal after conviction, Murdock
argues that the district court abused its discretion by allowing the amendment and erred by
then failing to renew his jury-trial waiver. He also contends that the district court abused
its discretion by failing to disclose the victim’s confidential therapy records and asks this
court to conduct an independent in camera review. For the reasons t hat follow we are
persuaded by none of Murdock’s arguments after our document review, and we affirm.
FACTS
An 11-year-old girl told Minneapolis police that John Murdock sexually a ssaulted
her many t imes during a period lasting about three or four years. The state charged
Murdock with first-degree criminal sexual conduct with a person younger than 13 years
old, alleging in its complaint that the offense occurred “on or about” October 3, 2018. The
probable-cause statement of the complaint included facts indicating that Murdock first
assaulted the girl in about 2015.
Murdock waived his right to a jury trial and proceeded with a bench trial in
September 2019. Before trial he asked the district court to review the victim’s school,
hospital, and child -protection records in camera and disclose materials relevant to his
defense. The district court declined to review the school records, but it reviewed the
hospital and child -protection records and found them mostly irrelevant . It disclose d to
Murdock some of the child-protection records.
The victim testified at trial, saying that Murdock repeated ly sexually assaulted her
beginning in about 2015. Over Murdock’s objection, the state moved to amend the
3
complaint to change the date of the offense from “on or about Oct ober 3rd, 2018” to “on
or about October 15th of 2015, through October 3rd, 2018.” The district court overruled
Murdock’s objection, concluding that t he amendment conformed to the trial evidence.
Murdock did not request, and the district court did not initi ate, a proceeding to renew
Murdock’s jury-trial waiver. The district court received other testimony, and it found
Murdock guilty. It sentenced him to serve 168 months in prison. Murdock appeals.
DECISION
Murdock challenges his conviction on three theories . He first maintains that the
district court improperly permitted the state to amend the complaint. He next contends that
the district court compounded the error by failing to renew his jury -trial waiver. And he
contends last that the district court improperly refused to disclose the victim’s confidential
records and asks us to conduct an in camera review on appeal. The arguments fail.
I
Murdock argues that the district court wrongly permitted the state to amend the
complaint and include a date range for the charged offense. A district court has broad
discretion to grant or deny a motion to amend a complaint, and we will not reverse its ruling
without a clear abuse of discretion. State v. Baxter , 686 N.W.2d 846, 850 (Minn. App.
2004). The state may amend its complaint before the verdict to conform to evidence
produced at trial if the amendment charges no additional or different offense and the
defendant’s substantial rights are not prejudiced. Minn. R. Crim. P. 17.05; Gerdes v. State,
319 N.W.2d 710, 712 (Minn. 1982). An amendment charges a different offense if it affects
an essential element of the originally charged offense. State v. Guerra, 562 N.W.2d 10, 13
4
(Minn. App. 1997). T he amendment here merely extended the period during which the
offense occurred. It did not charge a different offense.
Murdock argues that he was prejudiced by the amendment because he relied on the
designated date when he prepared his defense. But the state may amend the offense date if
it is not a mat erial element of the offense , and it is an essential element only when the
offense is prohibited “during certain seasons, on certain days or at certain hours.” State v.
Becker, 351 N.W.2d 923, 927 (Minn. 1984). We have previously held that the offense date
is not an element of the crime of first -degree criminal sexual conduct. Ruberg v. State ,
428 N.W.2d 488, 490 (Minn. App. 1988) , review denied (Minn. Oct. 26, 1988). And
Murdock’s claim of prejudice rings hollow given the complaint’s description of the first
sexual assault as allegedly having occurred in about 2015. The trial evidence was consistent
with that allegation, and the amendment conformed to it. The district court acted within its
discretion.
II
Murdock next asserts that allowing the amendment denied him his right to a jury
trial on every element of the offense . The federal and state c onstitutions afford criminal
defendants the right to a jury trial. U.S. Const. amend. VI; Minn. Const. art. I, § 6. The
right applies to every element of the charged offense. See State v. Kuhlmann, 806 N.W.2d
844, 848 (Minn. 2011). Whether a defendant has been denied his constitutional right to a
jury trial is a question of law that we review de novo. Id. at 848–49. If the defendant waives
his right to a jury trial and the state amends its complaint after the waiver, the district court
must renew the jury-trial waiver for the additional elements or charges. Id. at 850. But the
5
district court had no duty to renew Murdock’s jury -trial waiver because , again, the
amendment changed only the date of the offense rather than an element. It did not add a
charge or increase Murdock’s potential punishment. We see no error.
III
We are unpersuaded by Murdock’s contention that the district court improperly
refused to disclose the victim’s confidential records after reviewing them in camera . We
review the district court’s application of a statutory privilege for an abuse of discretion. See
State v. Hokanson , 821 N.W.2d 340, 349 (Minn. 2012). We independently review the
confidential documents to determine whether they are relevant to the defense and whether
the defendant was entitled to them. State v. Goldenstein, 505 N.W.2d 332, 344–45 (Minn.
App. 1993), review denied (Minn. Oct. 19, 1993). Although a defendant generally has the
right to substantial discovery to prepare for trial, requests to discover confidential records
require judicial screening to balance the defendant’s right to prepare for trial against a
victim’s or witness’s right to privacy. State v. Paradee , 4 03 N.W.2d 640, 642 (Minn.
1987). The district court should disclose confidential records only after the defendant has
made a “plausible showing” that they are material to the defense and the district court has
confirmed this based on its in camera review. State v. Hummel, 483 N.W.2d 68, 72 (Minn.
1992). We have carefully considered Murdock’s challenge to the district court’s failure to
review the victim’s school records a nd its failure to disclose the victim’s hospital and
child-protection records , and we discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s
decisions concerning them. Some of the documents do discuss the victim’s previous claims
of sexual abuse, but nothing in the record indicates that she fabricated any prior claim.
6
IV
Murdock submitted a supplemental brief challenging the district court’s finding that
the victim reported pain during the sexual assaults and questioning the victim’s credibility.
We do not find facts or weigh credibility on appeal. We instead accept a district court’s
findings of fact when the record contains sufficient evidence supporting them. Asfaha v.
State, 665 N.W.2d 523, 526 (Minn. 2003). And we defer to the district court’s cred ibility
determination because the fact-finder is in the best position to assess believability. State v.
Dickerson, 481 N.W.2d 840, 843 (Minn. 1992), aff’d , 508 U.S. 366, 113 S. Ct. 2130
(1993). The record contains ample support for the victim’s testimony and her claim of pain
during Murdock’s assaults. Murdock has identified no clear error in the district court’s
factual findings.
Affirmed.