Rami Hussein Hassan, petitioner, Appellant,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A21-1645

Rami Hussein Hassan, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

State of Minnesota,
Respondent.

Filed June 13, 2022
Affirmed
Larkin, Judge

Olmsted County District Court
File No. 55-CR-18-7694

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Leah C. Graf, Assistant Public
Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

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

Michael J. Spindler -Krage, Rochester City Attorney, Brent R. Carlsen, Assistant City
Attorney, Rochester, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Larkin, Presiding Judge; Connolly, Judge; and Smith,
Tracy M., Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
LARKIN, Judge
Appellant challenges the postconviction court’s denial of his petition for relief,
arguing that his conviction for domestic assault must be reversed because the state failed
to prove that he did not act in self-defense. We affirm.
2
FACTS
The state charged A ppellant Rami Hussein Hassan with domestic assault —fear,
domestic assault—harm, and disorderly conduct. The case was tried to a jury, and the state
presented evidence regarding the following circumstances.
Hassan had an altercation with S.C., the mother of his child, after S.C. drove Hassan
to her apartment to retrieve a blanket . S.C. went into her apartment, got the blanket,
returned to her car, and refused to drive Hassan to his mother’s home, which angered him.
Hassan did not possess a driver’s license and depended on S.C. for transportation.
S.C. ultimately agreed to give Hassan a ride. As S.C. drove, Hassan became upset
and hit her in the face. S.C. stopped the car and told Hassan to get out. Hassan refused
and took S.C.’s car key from the ignition. S.C. attempted to grab the key from Hassan’s
hand, and in doing so, inadvertently hit him in the chin . Hassan grabbed S.C. by her hair
in response.
Hassan and S.C. got out of the car, and Hassan left the scene with S.C.’s car key.
He later returned to the vehicle, encountered S.C., and an argument ensued. Hassan entered
the car and started it, and S.C. began banging on the hood and demanding her key. Hassan
exited the car. When S.C. attempted to grab her key, Hassan struck her “[r]eally hard” in
the face. A bystander called police, and officers responded and arrested Hassan.
The jury found Hassan guilty of domestic assault —harm and disorderly conduct,
and not guilty of domestic assault—fear. The district court entered judgment of conviction
for the domestic -assault offense and imposed a 30 -day stayed jail sentence. Hassan
petitioned for postconviction relief, seeking reversal of his domestic-assault conviction on
3
the grounds that the state failed to prove that he did not act in self -defense. The
postconviction court summarily denied relief, concluding that the evidence was sufficient
to sustain the jury’s verdict.
Hassan appeals.
DECISION
We review the denial of a postconviction petition for an abuse of discretion.
Pearson v. State, 891 N.W.2d 590, 596 (Minn. 201 7). A postconviction court abuses its
discretion if it “exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, based its ruling
on an erroneous view of the law, or made clearly erroneous factual findings.” Id. (quotation
omitted).
In considering a claim of insufficient evidence, we review the record to determine
whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was
sufficient to allow the jury to reach its verdict. State v. Webb, 440 N.W.2d 426, 430 (Minn.
1989). We assume that the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence
to the contrary. State v. Taylor, 650 N.W.2d 190, 206 (Minn. 2002). We defer to the jury’s
credibility determinations and will not reweigh the evidence on appeal. State v. Franks ,
765 N.W.2d 68, 73 (Minn. 2009); State v. Watkins , 650 N.W.2d 738, 741 (Minn. App.
2002). We will not disturb a guilty verdict if the jury, acting with due regard for the
presumption of innocence and requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could
reasonably have concluded that the state proved the defendant’s guilt. Bernhardt v. State,
684 N.W.2d 465, 476-77 (Minn. 2004).
4
Minnesota’s self-defense law allows a person to use “reasonable force” to resist an
offense by another. Minn. Stat. § 609.06, subd. 1(3) (2018); State v. Pollard, 900 N.W.2d
175, 178 (Minn. App. 2017). A defendant bears the burden of producing evidence to
support a claim of self -defense. State v. Johnson , 719 N.W.2d 619, 629 (Minn. 2006) .
Once the defendant meets that burden, the state must disprove one or more of the following
self-defense elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) an absence of aggression or
provocation by the defendant; (2) an actual and honest belief by the defendant that harm
was imminent; (3) a reasonable basis for the defendant ’s belief; and (4) an absence of a
reasonable means by which the defendant could have retreated or otherwise avoid ed the
conflict. Id.
Absence of Aggression or Provocation
The state presented evidence that Hassan initiated the altercation by hitting S.C. in
the face, refusing to exit her vehicle, and grabbing her key from the ignition. In addition,
Hassan returned to the scene after the first altercation, again refused to give S.C. her car
key, started her car, and struck S.C. without provocation. As S.C. testified at trial, Hassan
“swung” at her “out of nowhere” and hit her “[r]eally hard” in the face. Th at evidence,
viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, is sufficient to disprove an absence of
aggression or provocation by Hassan beyond a reasonable doubt.
Belief that Harm was Imminent
The second element of a self -defense claim is the defendant ’s actual and honest
belief that he was in imminent danger of harm. This element is subjective and depends
upon the defendant’s state of mind. Johnson, 719 N.W.2d at 630. Generally, a person’s
5
state of mind is proved through circumstantial evidence. State v. Smith, 825 N.W.2d 131,
136 (Minn. App. 2012), rev. denied (Minn. Mar. 19, 2013). However, Hassan told an
investigating police officer that he struck S.C. in the face because he was upset with her.
Thus, there was sufficient direct evidence to disprove the belief-of-imminent-harm element
of Hassan’s self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Horst, 880 N.W.2d
24, 40 (Minn. 2016) (stating defendant’s comment “was direct evidence of her mens rea”).
Reasonable Basis for that Belief
The third element of self-defense is a reasonable basis for the defendant’s belief that
harm was imminent. The reasonableness of the defendant’s belief is assessed under an
objective standard. Johnson, 719 N.W.2d at 631. Evidence showed that Hassan struck
S.C. “out of nowhere” after she attempted to retrieve her car key. Although S.C.
inadvertently hit Hassan during the initial struggle for the car key, the record does not
reveal an objective basis for Hassan to believe that S.C. would harm him when she later
attempted to retrieve her car key.
Absence of a Reasonable Means of Retreat
Lastly, we examine whether the state disproved that Hassan lacked a reasonable
means of retreat. “ Generally, the law requires that a person retreat if reasonably possible
before acting in self -defense.” State v. Devens, 852 N.W.2d 255 , 258 (Minn. 2014).
Nothing in the record suggests that Hassan lacked the ability to retreat from the scene
before striking S.C. “[r]eally hard” in the face. To the contrary, an eyewitness testified that
when Hassan swung at S.C., S.C. was “on the front driver’s side , kind of reaching in to
grab her keys” and that Hassan “had the back door of the driver’s side open and he was
6
standing in that doorway.” Moreover, Hassan had left the scene and returned prior to
hitting S.C. the second time . That evidence disproves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that
Hassan lacked a reasonable means to retreat or otherwise avoid the conflict.
In conclusion, the state needed to disprove just one element of Hassan’s self-defense
claim beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Radke, 821 N.W.2d 316, 324 (Minn. 2012)
(“[T]he [s]tate need only disprove beyond a reasonable doubt at least one of the elements
of self-defense.”). When the evidence is v iewed in a light most favorable to the verdict ,
the state met its burden. The postconviction court therefore did not abuse its discretion in
denying Hassan’s petition.
Affirmed.