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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A21-0289

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Blas Palma-Alvarado,
Appellant.

Filed February 7, 2022
Affirmed
Bryan, Judge

Nobles County District Court
File No. 53-CR-20-574

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

Joseph M. Sanow, Nobles County Attorney, Worthington, Minnesota; and

Travis J. Smith, Special Assistant County Attorney, Slayton, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Sharon E. Jacks, Assistant Public
Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Florey, Pres iding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Bryan,
Judge.
2
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
BRYAN, Judge
In this direct appeal of his conviction, appellant challenges the district court’s
decision to admit a security video recording during the trial. We affirm the conviction
because we conclude that the district court did not err when it admitted the video.
FACTS
On July 14, 2020, responden t State of Minnesota charged appellant Blas Palma-
Alvarado with one count of fi rst-degree assault with a dange rous weapon, in violation of
Minnesota statutes section 609.221, subdivisi on 1. According to the complaint, on July
11, 2020, Palma-Alvarado got into a fist fight with J.Q. outside the front entrance of Palma-
Alvarado’s apartment building. Detectiv e Dave Hoffman from the Worthington Police
Department reviewed security footage from th e front entrance of the apartment building,
which depicted Palma-Alvarado enter the apartment building, then return holding a knife
that he swung at J.Q. When the maintenanc e coordinator at the apartment was unable to
download the security videos, Hoffman recorded the security videos using his body camera
to film the recordings as they played on a monitor. As part of its disclosures, the state
turned over four separate videos that Hoffman recorded, but on ly one is relevant to this
appeal.
The case proceeded to trial and the state noted its intenti on to introduce one of the
videos (the Hoffman video). Palma-Alvara do filed a motion in limine to exclude the
Hoffman video, requesting that the court:
3
Prohibit the state from playing the video captured by
Worthington police . . . The video is incomplete. It does not
capture the entire incident and is inconsistent with what the
victim alleged happened . . . . The State had a duty to obtain
the entire footage . . . Failure to do so violates Brady. It is also
unfair to the defense to allow the state to only play the portion
of the incident which it chose to preserve. See State v. Dolo ,
942 N.W.2d 357 (2020) and Minnesota Rule of Evidence 106.

The case was tried over two days in October 2 020. At the start of trial, the district
court addressed the defense’ s motion and Palma-Alvarado’ s defense attorney again
requested that the court exclude the video:
Your Honor, the defense is requesting that the Court
exclude the video from the [apartment building]. It is a video
of . . . Agent Hoffman’s body camera of surveillance camera
footage. It’s not the actual surveillance camera footage. There
are gaps missing in the footage. At one point the video skips
from 16:05:11 to 16:06:35. At another point it skips from
16:10:26 to 16:12:09. The defense is of the position that this
is not the complete video that the—it appears that the video has
been edited or that there are parts missing even in the parts that
the State is wanting to play. And it’s also not the complete
incident. There were things that happened both before and
after the incident. It doesn’t actually show the actual stabbing.
And based on those things, the defense is asking that the video
be excluded.

The district court denied the motion. At trial, the state presented the testimony of
Hoffman, J.Q., two doctors who treated J.Q.’s injuries, two other law enforcement officers
and the maintenance coordinator for the apartment building. Palma-Alvarado testified on
his own behalf and was the only witness for the defense.
The maintenance coordinator testified about the Hoffman video and the apartment
building surveillance:
4
Q: I’m going to hand you wh at I’ve marked as State’s
exhibit number one. Do you recognize what exhibit
number one is?
A: Yes. It’s the video of the incident.
Q: And is that the video that you had—that you gave to
Detective Hoffman?
A: Correct.
Q: Now, did you edit the video or alter it in any way?
A: I did not.
Q: Is it a true and accurate copy of the video that was on
your system at the [apartment building?]
A: Yes.

The maintenance coordinator explained that there are skips in the video because the
cameras operate on motion-capture, and the camer as “won’t continue to film until it sees
motion.” He explained that although there are 13 or 14 cameras in the apartment building,
the fight happened right outside the entrance. When asked why he did not give a digital
copy of the apartment security video to the police, the maintenance coordinator explained
that he could not figure out how to retrieve a recording from the system.
When Hoffman testified, he stated that he contacted the maintenance coordinator
about any surveillance video from July 11
th and the maintenance coordinator showed him
the apartment security video.
Q: Detective Hoffman, I’m go ing to hand you what has
been marked as state’s e xhibit number one. Do you
recognize State’s exhibit number one, Detective
Hoffman?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: What is it?
A: Video from the [apartment building.]
Q: Is this the video that you recorded off of the [apartment
building] surveillance system?
A: Yes.
Q: On July 13
th of 2020?
A: Yes.
5
Q: Is it a true and accurate co py of what you observed at
[the apartment building] on their surveillance system?
A: Yes.

Hoffman also testified that the footage skipped because of the motion-capture nature of the
video. When the prosecutor o ffered the video as an exhib it, the defense made no new
objections to the Hoffman video:
THE STATE: Your Honor, I would offer exhibit number
one.
THE COURT: Any objection?
DEFENSE: Your Honor, I would just note that my
prior objection to the video is ongoing.

The district court overruled the objection and received the Hoffman video into evidence.
The jury found Palma-Alva rado guilty, and the district court sentenced Palma-
Alvarado to 74 months in prison. Palma-Alvarado appeals.
DECISION
Palma-Alvarado challenges the admission of the Hoffman video on multiple
grounds, some for the first time on appeal.
1 We first address the arguments on appeal that

1 Palma-Alvarado filed a supplemental brief rais ing various concerns, but did not cite to
any legal authority, and the arguments are eith er duplicative of those contained in the
principal brief or concern ev idence not offered or receiv ed at trial, although Palma-
Alvarado makes no claim of ineffective assist ance. We decline to address the additional
concerns raised in th e supplemental brief. E.g., State v. Bursch , 905 N.W.2d 884, 889
(Minn. App. 2017) (“Arguments are forfeited if they are presen ted in a summary and
conclusory form, do not cite to applicable law, and fail to analyze the law when claiming
that errors of law occurred.”); see also Waters v. Fiebelkorn , 13 N.W.2d 461, 464-65
(Minn. 1974) (“[O]n appeal error is neve r presumed. It must be made to appear
affirmatively before there can be reversal . . . [and] the burden of showing error rests upon
the one who relies upon it.”).
6
were previously raised before the district court and then proceed to the new arguments
raised only on appeal.
I. Review of the Objections Ov erruled by the District Court
Before the district court, Palma-Alva rado objected to the admissibility of the
Hoffman video under rule 106 of the Minnes ota Rules of Evidence and the “rule of
completeness.”2 Palma-Alvarado also argued that the state’s failure to “disclose additional
footage of the fight” amounted to a Brady violation.3 Neither argument convinces us to
vacate the conviction.
Minnesota Rule of Evidence 106 requires admission of omitted portions of a written
or recorded statement: “When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced
by a party, an adverse party ma y require the introduction at th at time of any other part or
any other writing or recorded statement wh ich ought in fairness to be considered
contemporaneously with it.” Rule 106 “doe s not govern its admissibility—in fact, the
additional material must be independently admissible.” Dolo v. State , 942 N.W.2d 357,
364 (Minn. 2020). Although rule 106 relates only to “a writing or recorded statement,” the
common law rule of completeness extends to conversations and other oral statements. See,
21A Kenneth W. Graham, Jr., Federal Practice and Procedure § 5073 n.1 (2d ed. 2015)

2 The motion in limine and the arguments before the district court arguably also raise a
challenge to the authenticity of the original security video, as distinct from the authenticity
of Hoffman’s video. Palma-Alvarado, howeve r, does not raise this challenge on appeal.
In his reply brief and during oral argument , Palma-Alvarado concedes the authenticity of
the apartment surveillance video under rule 901.
3 In Brady v. Maryland , the United States supreme c ourt held that a prosecutor’s
suppression of material evidence violates the defendant’s constitutional due-process rights.
373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963).
7
(comparing cases interpreting rule 106 of the Federal Rules of Evidence to the common
law parameters of the rule of completeness) ; David P. Leonard & Richard D. Friedman,
The New Wigmore: Selected Rules of Limited Admissibility , § 5.7.3 n.40 (3d ed. 2020)
(same).
“Evidentiary rulings rest w ithin the sound discretion of the district court, and we
will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.” State v. Ali, 855
N.W.2d 235, 249 (Minn. 2014 ). This court will reverse onl y if the error prejudiced the
appealing party. Dolo, 942 N.W.2d at 363; see also Minn. R. Crim. P. 31.01. An erroneous
evidentiary ruling that does not implicate a constitutional right, prejudices a defendant if
“there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted ev idence significantly
affected the verdict.” State v. Peltier, 874 N.W.2d 792, 802 (Minn. 2016) (quotation and
citation omitted).
Palma-Alvarado argues that rule 106 an d the rule of comp leteness compelled
exclusion of the Hoffman video. We are not persuaded. Rule 106 and the rule of
completeness do not compel exclusion of inco mplete evidence. In stead, they permit
presentation of other, independently admissibl e evidence, in additi on to the incomplete
evidence that was already admitted. Similarly, there could be no prejudice in admitting the
Hoffman video where Palma-Alvarado never sou ght to introduce any other videos under
rule 106 or the rule of completeness. We al so have concerns about the implications of
Palma-Alvarado’s argument. Palma-Alvarado cites no binding authority that has applied
rule 106 or the rule of comple teness to a video that is not a video recording of a person’s
oral statement. The argument invites us to set forth a new legal rule expanding either rule
8
106 or the common law parameters. In th e absence of binding authority, however, we
decline to interpret either rule as applicable to security videos or body camera videos like
the Hoffman video.
Palma-Alvarado also contends that the admission of the video violated Brady. To
determine if a Brady violation occurred, courts consider three elements:
(1) the evidence must be favorable to the defendant because it
would have been either exculp atory or impeaching; (2) the
evidence must have been suppressed by the prosecution,
intentionally or otherwise; a nd (3) the evidence must be
material—in other words, the ab sence of the evidence must
have caused prejudice to the defendant.

Walen v. State, 777 N.W.2d 213, 216 (Minn. 2010); (citing Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S.
263, 281-82 (1999)). Again, we are not convinced. Brady places no obligation on the state
to produce exculpatory evidence that does not exist or th at is not in its possession. See,
e.g., State v. Engle , 731 N.W.2d 852, 854 (Minn. App. 2007) (“The stat e’s failure to
investigate to uncover and preserve potentially exculpatory evidence does not implicate a
defendant’s right to due process and trigger a Brady analysis.”). Here, the parties agree
that the state produced all the videos that were in its possession and that they obtained from
the apartment maintenance coordinator. In addition, Palma-Alvarado cites no authority to
support the proposition that Brady, which compels disclosure of exculpatory evidence, has
also been interpreted to compel exclusion of inculpatory evidence.
For these reasons, Palma-Alvarado cannot establish that the district court abused its
discretion by overruling his objections and admitting the Hoffman video.
9
II. Review of Unobjected-To Errors
On appeal, Palma-Alvarado makes two challenges to the admission of the Hoffman
video that had not been raised previously with the district court. First, Palma-Alvarado
contests the admissibility of the Hoffman video because it was “unauthenticated” under
rule 901 of the Minnesota Rules of Eviden ce. Second, Palma-Alvarado challenges the
admissibility of the Hoffman video as an improper duplicate of the original security video
under rule 1003 of the Minnes ota Rules of Evidence. We co nclude that admission of the
Hoffman video was not a clear and obvious error.
This court will review an unobjected-to error under the “plain error test.” State v.
Myhre, 875 N.W.2d 799, 804 (Minn. 2016). “In order to meet the plain error standard, a
criminal defendant must show that (1) there was an error, (2) the error was plain, and
(3) the error affected the defe ndant’s substantial rights.” Id. (citing State v. Griller, 583
N.W.2d 736, 740 (Minn. 1998)). “An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, which is
typically established if the error contravenes ca se law, a rule, or a st andard of conduct.”
State v. Webster, 894 N.W.2d 782, 787 (Minn. 2017) (quotation and citation omitted).
Palma-Alvarado argues that the district court plainly erred by admitting the
Hoffman video because it was “unauthenticated.”4 “The requirement of authentication or
identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to
support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” Minn. R. Evid.
901(a). One method of establishing a founda tion for evidence is by the testimony of a

4 As noted above, Palma-Alvarado makes no challenge on appeal to the authenticity of the
original security video.
10
witness that the eviden ce is what the proponent claims it to be. See Minn. R. Evid.
901(b)(1).
In this case, the maintenance coordinator te stified that he did not edit or alter the
apartment security footage in any way. He also testified that he watched the Hoffman
video and he believed that it was a true and accurate copy of the apartment security footage.
He also explained that the ga ps in the footage were becau se the cameras operated on
motion-capture, and the video will only film when it senses motion. The state also offered
Hoffman’s testimony to authenticate and lay foundation for the Hoffman video. Hoffman
testified how he recorded the video and that he believed it was a true and accurate copy of
the original security video. Based on this testimony, we conclude that admitting the
Hoffman video was not a clear or obvious error, contravening established law or rule. See
Webster, 894 N.W.2d at 787.
Palma-Alvarado also challenges the admi ssibility of the Ho ffman video as a
duplicate or copy of the original surveillance footage, citing rule 1003. “A duplicate is
admissible to the same extent as an original unless (1) a genuine question is raised as to the
authenticity of the original or (2) in the ci rcumstances it would be unfair to admit the
duplicate in lieu of the original.” Minn. R. Evid. 1003. The term “duplicate” includes
mechanical or electronic re-recordings. Mi nn. R. Evid. 1001(4). Re-recordings of
videotapes “should be accepted as duplicates when shown to have been made by a
technique designed to ensure accurate reproduction of the original.” State v. Brown, 739
N.W.2d 716, 722 (Minn. 2007).
11
We do not agree with Palm a-Alvarado for several reasons. First, Palma-Alvarado
cites no authority applying rule 1003 to a reco rding of this type, wh ich is not strictly a
duplicate of the original security video. Instead, the Hoffman vide o is a recording of
Hoffman and the maintenance manager watching the original security video. Absent some
authority, we are not convinced that rule 1003 applies. Second, even if rule 1003 applies,
Palma-Alvarado does not challenge the authenticity of the original security video, a
requirement of rule 1003. Brown, 739 N.W.2d at 722 (“Unless there is a genuine question
as to the authenticity of the original recording or unfairness in the admission of the digital
copy that qualifies as a dup licate, the properly authenticated digital copy is generally
admissible.”). Third, to determine the fair ness of admitting the Hoffman video in lieu of
the original security video, we would nece ssarily review whether the Hoffman video was
recorded in a manner that is consistent with a “technique designed to ensure accurate
reproduction of the original.” Id. The record in this case, however, contains no evidence
regarding techniques used to make duplicate video recordings. Thus, we cannot, on this
record, conclude that Hoffman failed to follow accurate recording techniques. Fourth and
finally, Palma-Alvarado’s arguments of unfairness assume the existence of other security
video recordings that would show him acting in self-defense. Palma-Alvarado argues it is
unfair to only admit the Hoffman video and not to also admit these other video recordings.
Absent any indication that security footage c onsistent with Palma-Al varado’s theory of
defense actually exists, admission of the Hoff man video would not be unfair. Therefore,
we cannot conclude that it was a clear or obviou s error for the district court to admit the
Hoffman video.
12
Because we conclude that Palma-Alvarado cannot establish that the district court
plainly erred, we need not consider the remaining components of the plain error test. State
v. Hayes, 826 N.W.2d 799, 808 (Minn. 2013).
Affirmed.