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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A20-1444

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Andrew Erik Heiderscheid,
Appellant.

Filed August 30, 2021
Affirmed
Kirk, Judge*

Dakota County District Court
File No. 19HA-CR-20-1534

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

Kathryn M. Keena, Dakota County Attorney, Heather Pipenhagen, Assistant County
Attorney, Hastings, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Julie Loftus Nelson, Assistant
Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Hooten, Presiding Judge; Smith, Tracy M., Judge; and
Kirk, Judge.

*Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

2
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
KIRK, Judge
Appellant challenges his conviction for receiving stolen property on grounds that
evidence introduced at trial was unnoticed and prejudicial Spreigl evidence. Because the
challenged evidence was part of the immediate episode of the charged offense, we affirm.
FACTS
Appellant Andrew Erik Heiderscheid was convicted by a jury of receiving stolen
property in August 2020. The evidence at trial established that a 2019 Ford F-350 truck
and various hand tools were stolen from an industrial site on May 23 , 2020. On May 30,
an off-duty South St. Paul police officer spotted Heiderscheid parking the truck. The
officer returned the next day and found Heiderscheid parked next to the truck in a silver
van and discovered the truck to be stolen. Several hand tools stolen from the site were also
found in the bed of the truck. The state also introduced evidence that a gray or silver van
appeared on surveillance footage entering the site and following the truck out some minutes
later, and that Heiderscheid pawned a tool determined to be stolen from the site several
hours after the theft occurred.
DECISION
We review the district court’s evidentiary ruling admitting the evidence of the
burglary and the pawning of the tool for an abuse of discretion. State v. Riddley, 776
N.W.2d 419, 424 (Minn. 2009). Heiderscheid challenges this evidence as unnoticed and
3
prejudicial Spreigl evidence.1 But the state may “prove all relevant facts and
circumstances” of the immediate episode of the charged offense, “even though such facts
and circumstances may prove or tend to prove that the defendant committed other crimes.”
State v. Wofford, 114 N.W.2d 267, 271 (Minn. 1962). Such evidence may be properly
admitted without Spreigl analysis. State v. Darveaux, 318 N.W.2d 44, 48 (Minn. 1982).
The exception applies “where two or more offenses are linked together in point of time or
circumstances so that one cannot be fully shown without proving the other, ” and such
evidence shows “a causal relation or connection between the two acts so that they may
reasonably be said to be part of one transaction.” Wofford, 114 N.W.2d at 271-72.
The challenged evidence meets this exception. The burglary and the pawning of the
stolen tool took place six days before Heiderscheid was spotted driving the stolen truck.
Heiderscheid was discovered in possession of the same items that were alleged to be stolen.
See Darveaux, 318 N.W.2d at 48 (concluding evidence of defendant’s later possession of
drugs alleged to be stolen from a pharmacy was properly admitted as immediate episode
evidence). The evidence of the burglary on May 23 facilitated the charged offense—
receiving stolen property—because it produced the stolen property that he was charged
with receiving. See State v. Fardan, 773 N.W.2d 303, 317 (Minn. 2009) (indicating the

1 Evidence of other crimes or wrongful acts is not admissible except in accordance with
Minn. R. Evid. 404(b). State v. Kennedy, 585 N.W.2d 385, 389 (Minn. 1998); see generally
State v. Spreigl, 139 N.W.2d 167 (Minn. 1965). Rule 404(b) provides that other crimes
evidence may not be admitted unless the defendant is provided notice, the evidence is
“relevant to” proof of “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity,
or absence of mistake or accident,” the defendant’s participation in the other crimes is
“proven by clear and convincing evidence,” and “the probative value of the evidence is not
outweighed by its potential for unfair prejudice.” Minn. R. Evid. 404(b).
4
immediate-episode exception is met where one offense is “committed to facilitate the
other”). And there is no doubt of a close causal connection between the pawned tool and
the charged offense, as the evidence of the pawned tool tends to demonstrate
Heiderscheid’s knowledge that the remaining property from the burglary he was in
possession of on May 30 was stolen. See Riddley, 776 N.W.2d at 425 (stating courts “have
repeatedly affirmed the admission of immediate-episode evidence when there is a close
causal and temporal connection between the prior bad act and the charged crime” (footnote
omitted)).
Because the challeng ed evidence is part of the immediate episode of the charged
offense, we discern no abuse of discretion in its admission.
Affirmed.