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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A23-1144

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Lonny Slade Glover,
Appellant.

Filed July 14, 2025
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded
Klaphake, Judge*

Koochiching County District Court
File No. 36-CR-22-348

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Lisa Lodin, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul,
Minnesota; and

Jeffrey Naglosky, Koochiching County Attorney, International Falls, Minnesota (for
respondent)

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

Considered and decided by Bjorkman, Presiding Judge; Harris, Judge; and
Klaphake, Judge.

* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
2
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
KLAPHAKE, Judge
In a direct appeal that was stayed for postconviction proceedings, appellant
challenges the district court’s final judgments of conviction for two counts of
second-degree criminal sexual conduct. Appellant argues that the district court erred by
(1) communicating with the deliberating jury outside appellant’s presence, (2) instructing
the jury to continue deliberating after the jury indicated that it could not reach a unanimous
verdict, and (3) convicting appellant for two counts of criminal sexual conduct based on a
single act. Appellant raises five additional arguments in a supplemental brief. We conclude
that the district court did not commit reversible error when communicating with the jury,
that the district court did not plainly err by instructing the jury to continue deliberating, and
that appellant is not entitled to relief based on the issues raised in his supplemental brief.
But we conclude that the district court erred by entering convictions for two offenses that
arose out of the same behavioral incident. Therefore, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and
remand for resentencing.
DECISION
Generally, appellate courts review the denial of a petition for postconviction relief
for an abuse of discretion. Reed v. State, 925 N.W.2d 11, 18 (Minn. 2019). But when, as
here, “a defendant initially files a direct appeal and then moves for a stay to pursue
postconviction relief, [appellate courts] review the postconviction court’s decisions using
the same standard that [they] apply on direct appeal.” State v. Beecroft, 813 N.W.2d 814,
836 (Minn. 2012).
3
I. The district court did not commit plain error when it instructed the jury to
continue deliberating.

Appellant Lonny Slade Glover argues that the district court gave a coercive jury
instruction during deliberations.
1 Glover did not object to the challenged instruction during
district court proceedings. Thus, we review his argument for plain error. See
State v. Griller, 583 N.W.2d 736, 740 (Minn. 1998) (noting that appellate courts have “the
discretion to consider” an issue not raised to the district court “if it is plain error affecting
substantial rights”). To meet the plain-error standard, “a criminal defendant must show that
(1) there was an error, (2) the error was plain,” (3) the error affected their substantial rights,
and (4) that the error should be addressed “to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial
proceedings.” State v. Myhre, 875 N.W.2d 799, 804-05 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted).
But if “any one of the requirements” of the plain-error test is not satisfied, an appellate
court “need not address any of the others.” State v. Lilienthal, 889 N.W.2d 780, 785
(Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted).
A. The Jury Instructions

In January 2023, the district court conducted Glover’s four-day jury trial. At the
close of the evidence, the district court gave the following jury instruction:
In order for you to return a verdict whether guilty or not
guilty, each juror must agree with the verdict. Your verdict
must be unanimous.

You should discuss the case with one another, and
deliberate with a view toward reaching agreement, if you can

1 This is the second issue addressed in the parties’ briefs. For ease of discussion, we first
analyze the content of the district court’s challenged instruction, then the procedure in
which it was given.
4
do so without violating your individual judgment. You should
decide the case for yourself, but only after you have discussed
the case with your fellow jurors and have carefully considered
their views. You should not hesitate to reexamine your views
and change your opinion if you become convinced that they’re
erroneous, but you should not surrender your honest opinion
simply because other jurors disagree or merely to reach a
verdict.

This was a near-verbatim recitation of CRIMJIG 3.04. 10 Minnesota Practice, CRIMJIG
3.04 (2022) (providing model jury instructions regarding deliberations and unanimous
verdicts).
The case was submitted to the jury at 3:09 p.m. About four hours later, at 7:25 p.m.,
a bailiff gave the district court judge a note from the jury that said: “Your Honor, we cannot
come to a unanimous decision on all the elements of the charges. Please advise us on our
next steps. Thank you.” The judge testified that she replied by writing, on that same note,
“something to the effect of if you could keep deliberating a little longer.” The note was
then returned to the jury. About 15 minutes later, at 7:40 p.m., the district court notified
the parties about the note and its supplemental instruction. Glover did not object to the
instruction given by the district court. Seven minutes later, at 7:47 p.m., the district court
excused the jury for the night.
The next morning, a little before 9:09 a.m., the district court gave the following
instruction to the jury, pursuant to State v. Martin:
[I]n order to return a verdict, each of you must agree and
that you—each of you must agree to that verdict. Jurors have a
duty to consult with one another and to deliberate with a view
to reach an agreement if it can be done without violence to
individual judgment. Each juror must decide the case but only
after an impartial consideration of the evidence with fellow
5
jurors. In the course of deliberations, a juror should not hesitate
to re-examine their own views and change an opinion if
convinced that it is erroneous. And no juror should surrender
their honest conviction as to the weight or effect of the
evidence solely because of the opinion of fellow jurors for the
mere purpose of returning a verdict. So, at this time, we’ll
return you to the jury room to continue deliberations.

See State v. Martin, 211 N.W.2d 765 at 771-72 (Minn. 1973) (adopting instructions for
district courts to use with a deadlocked jury). Less than an hour later, at 9:52 a.m., the jury
reached a guilty verdict.
B. Analysis

We first consider whether the substance of the district court’s note to the jury was
plain error. “An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, which is typically established if the
error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” State v. Webster, 894 N.W.2d
782, 787 (Minn. 2017) (quotations omitted). Glover challenges the district court’s
instruction to continue deliberating.
A district court may provide supplemental instructions if a jury reports itself unable
to agree on a verdict; however, the instructions must not improperly coerce a verdict.
Martin, 211 N.W.2d at 771-73. A district court improperly coerces a verdict when its
instructions, taken as a whole, communicate to the jury “that it must reach a verdict, or that
deadlock is not an option.” State v. Olsen, 824 N.W.2d 334, 339 (Minn. App. 2012),
rev. denied (Minn. Feb. 27, 2013).
When a district court believes that the jury is at an impasse, it “may require the jury
to continue their deliberations and may give or repeat an instruction” but it “shall not
require or threaten to require the jury to deliberate for an unreasonable length of time or
6
for unreasonable intervals.” State v. Kelley, 517 N.W.2d 905, 909 (Minn. 1994) (quotation
omitted). A district court need not instruct the jury that a deadlock is permissible.
State v. Peterson, 530 N.W.2d 843, 846 (Minn. App. 1995). Here, the district court’s
postconviction order determined that the instruction to continue deliberating “did not
misstate the law nor was it coercive.”
Glover argues that the district court’s instruction “coerced the jury toward a
unanimous verdict and allowed them to believe a deadlock was not an option.” (Quotation
omitted.) Glover contends that this instruction was “‘ particularly coercive’ because the
court gave it in response to the jurors asking to be told what to do next after saying they
could not come to a unanimous decision on the elements of the charges.” Glover also
maintains that the later Martin instruction “did not fix the problem of giving the coercive
instruction” because it did not tell the jury that deadlock was a permissible outcome.
The state counters that the district court did not err by instructing the jury to continue
deliberating because the district court (1) “properly read the model instruction on
deliberation and unanimity”; (2) “did not require the jurors to keep deliberating for an
unreasonable amount of time”; and (3) “did not coercively pronounce that the jury ‘ must
return a verdict’ or direct that ‘you are to make a decision on this,’” as prohibited by
caselaw.
Both parties rely on State v. Olsen. 824 N.W.2d at 337-40. In Olsen, the district
court gave a “near-verbatim recitation of CRIMJIG 3.04” to the jury. Id. at 336-37. “[A]fter
4.75 hours of deliberation, the jury sent a note to the district court stating: ‘We have reached
an impasse, how should we continue.’” Id. at 337. The district court instructed the jury to
7
continue deliberating. Id. The district court added, “There are twelve of you and you are to
make a decision on this. . . . Back to the room .” Id. The jury returned a verdict 5.5 hours
after the instruction. Id. We determined that the district court’s instruction “was the
equivalent of telling the jury that it must reach a verdict,” and concluded that the district
court’s instruction, “in the context of the instructions taken as a whole, constituted the
reversible error of coercing the jury to reach a verdict.” Id. at 339-40.
There are some parallels between the challenged instruction here and the instruction
in Olsen. Both instructions came about four hours into deliberations and after the jury told
the district court it reached an impasse. However, there are also key distinctions between
the two instructions. Here, the district court instructed the jury only to continue
deliberating. The record does not include any statements indicating that the jury must reach
a verdict or that deadlock was not an option. And unlike the jury in Olsen, which
deliberated for an additional 5.5 hours after receiving its instruction, Glover’s jury was
excused about 20 minutes after being instructed to continue deliberating. Id. at 337. This
shows that the jury was not required to deliberate “for an unreasonable length of time.”
Kelley, 517 N.W.2d at 909.
Perhaps most importantly, the district court here gave a Martin instruction the
following morning. See Martin, 211 N.W.2d at 772-73 (explaining that, when confronted
with a deadlocked jury, the district court should reiterate the jury-instruction language on
a unanimous verdict). The last instruction the jury heard from the district court before
finding Glover guilty was that “no juror should surrender their honest conviction as to the
weight or effect of the evidence solely because of the opinion of fellow jurors or for the
8
mere purpose of returning a verdict.” (Emphasis added.) Appellate courts assume that the
jury followed the district court’s instructions. State v. Ferguson, 581 N.W.2d 824, 833
(Minn. 1998).
Taken as a whole, the district court’s instructions did not communicate to the jury
that they were required to reach a verdict. Therefore, the district court did not err when it
instructed the jury to continue deliberating. Because the content of the instruction was not
erroneous, we need not address the other steps of the plain- error test. See Lilienthal,
889 N.W.2d at 785.
II. The district court’s error in communicating with the jury outside Glover’s
presence did not impact Glover’s substantial rights.

Glover next argues that the district court erred by answering the jury’s note outside
of open court, without his knowledge, consent, or presence, and without making a
contemporaneous record of the communications with the jury. The Sixth Amendment of
the United States Constitution grants a defendant the right to be present at all stages of trial.
State v. Sessions, 621 N.W.2d 751, 755 (Minn. 2001) (citing Lewis v. United States, 146 U.S. 370, 374 (1892)). The district court “[r]esponding to a deliberating jury’s question
is a stage of trial.” Sessions, 621 N.W.2d at 755. The Minnesota Rules of Criminal
Procedure also mandate that a criminal defendant be present “for every stage of the trial
including . . . any jury questions dealing with evidence or law.” Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.03,
subd. 1(1).
9
Glover did not object to the district court communicating with the jury outside of
his presence at trial. Therefore, we apply the plain-error test described above. See Griller,
583 N.W.2d at 740.
A. The district court plainly erred when it answered the jury’s question
outside Glover’s presence.

We first consider whether the district court’s out-of-court communication with the
jury was plain error. See Webster, 894 N.W.2d at 787 (stating that an error is plain “if it is
clear or obvious, which is typically established if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or
a standard of conduct” (quotation s omitted)). The district court’s postconviction order
found that “it was perhaps error for [the judge] to return a note to the jury advising them to
keep deliberating.” The state concedes that the judge “may have plainly erred under the
criminal rules.”
In Sessions, the district court received three notes from the jury during its
deliberations. 621 N.W.2d at 754-55. After notifying each attorney about the jury’s
questions and its proposed answers, the district court delivered its written answers to the
jury room. Id. at 754. Appellant “was not told of the jury’s questions nor consulted
regarding the trial court’s proposed answers, and . . . did not waive any right to be present.”
Id. at 754-55. The supreme court concluded that the district court’s “response to the jury in
this case in appellant’s absence and without obtaining a waiver from appellant violated his
Sixth Amendment right to be present and Rule 26.03, subd. 1(1).” Id. at 756.
Like the district court in Sessions, the district court here answered the jury’s note
outside Glover’s presence without obtaining a waiver from him. See id. The district court
10
also allowed the jury to receive a supplemental instruction outside of the courtroom, in
violation of Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.03, subd. 20(3) (“If the jury asks for additional
instruction on the law during deliberation, the court must give notice to the parties. The
court’s response must be given in the courtroom.”). Because the district court’s response
contravenes caselaw and the rules of criminal procedure, it was plain error.
B. The error did not affect Glover’s substantial rights.
We next consider whether the error affected Glover’s substantial rights. An error
affects the defendant’s substantial rights when “there is a reasonable likelihood that the
absence of the error would have had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.”
State v. Horst, 880 N.W.2d 24, 38 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted).
2 An appellate court’s
“analysis under the third prong of the plain error test is the equivalent of a harmless error
analysis.” State v. Matthews, 800 N.W.2d 629, 634 (Minn. 2011). “When considering
whether the erroneous exclusion of a defendant from judge-jury communications
constitutes harmless error, we consider the strength of the evidence . . . and substance of
the judge’s response.” Sessions, 621 N.W.2d at 756. 3 Glover bears the “heavy burden” of
showing that he was prejudiced by this error. Griller, 583 N.W.2d at 741.

2 In his brief, Glover analyzes whether the district court’s communication was harmless
beyond a reasonable doubt. However, when a constitutional error is reviewed for plain
error, the threshold for prejudice is whether “there is a reasonable likelihood that the error
had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” Beecroft, 813 N.W.2d at 841 (quotation
omitted).

3 An error is not harmless merely because sufficient evidence supports the verdict.
State v. Bigbear, 10 N.W.3d 48, 55 (Minn. 2024). Instead, appellate courts “must consider
all the evidence introduced as well as other illuminating factors . . . and ask whether there
is a reasonable possibility that the error significantly affected the verdict.” Id.
11
1. Strength of the Evidence
As to the strength of the evidence, Glover argues that the evidence of guilt was weak
for both charges. The state does not appear to address this factor in its brief . The state
charged Glover with second-degree criminal sexual conduct under Minn. Stat. § 609.343,
subd. 1a(e) (Supp. 2021), alleging that Glover was more than 36 months older than the
complainant, who was under 14 years of age (count one), and second-degree criminal
sexual conduct under Minn. Stat. § 609.343, subd. 1a(h)(iii) ( Supp. 2021), alleging that
Glover had a significant relationship to the complainant, who was under 16 years of age,
and that the sexual abuse involved multiple acts committed over an extended period of time
(count two). The complaint alleged that Glover engaged in sexual contact with his
girlfriend’s nine-year-old daughter “on or about” May 18, 2022, and that the abuse began
when daughter was seven years old.
At trial, daughter testified that she lived with her mother and Glover when Glover
was dating her mother . Daughter agreed that she told her friend, J.L., a “secret” about
Glover, but could not remember what it was. Daughter agreed that she spoke with a social
worker about “some parts of our bodies that we keep covered up” and that their
conversation had “something to do with one of the secrets” daughter told J.L . Daughter
agreed that she told the social worker the truth when they spoke but testified that she could
not remember why she talked to the social worker or most of their conversation. Daughter
cried on the stand and agreed that it was “[j]ust too hard to talk about.”
A social worker with Koochiching County Public Health and Human Services
testified that, in May 2022, she conducted a forensic interview of daughter about alleged
12
sexual abuse, using the Child First protocol.4 The interview was video recorded and played
for the jury. In the recording, daughter reported multiple instances of Glover touching her
intimate parts and stated that the touching began when she was seven years old. Daughter
also reported that she told her mother and three of her friends, including J.L., about the
abuse.
Mother testified that she was in a relationship with Glover in May 2022. Mother
received a Facebook message from J.L.’s mother that daughter had told J.L. that Glover
“was touching her inappropriately.” Daughter confirmed that this was true , and mother
reported the sexual abuse to the police.
J.L. testified and agreed that daughter told her a “pretty big” secret. J.L. cried on the
stand and agreed that daughter’s secret was “about somebody hurting her.”
The video interview, which was received into evidence, supports both counts of
second-degree criminal sexual conduct. J.L. and mother’s testimony corroborated
daughter’s disclosures of the sexual abuse. Daughter, however, did not testify about the
abuse while she was on the witness stand, and there was no other evidence of abuse.
Because the state’s case hinged on daughter’s credibility during the video interview, this
factor slightly favors Glover.

4 According to the social worker’s testimony, Child First is a forensic interviewing program
that teaches professionals how to interview children who may have experienced sexual
abuse. The training teaches interviewers to build rapport with the child before asking the
child about their story.
13
2. The Substance of the Judge’s Response
We next consider the substance of the judge’s response. During postconviction
proceedings, the judge who conducted Glover’s trial testified that she received a written
note from the jury asking how it should proceed. On the same piece of paper, the judge
handwrote “something to the effect of if you could keep deliberating a little bit longer.”
The judge did not know who delivered the note back to the jury but “imagine[d] it was the
bailiff.” The judge “had no contact with the Jury.” The district court’s postconviction order
determined that “[t]here is simply no evidence that [the judge’s] response to the jury
affected the outcome of the result.”
Glover argues that the judge’s “instruction to continue deliberating was coercive
and the jury was never told that deadlock was a permissible option.”
5 As already discussed,
the substance of the instruction was not coercive, and the judge was not required to
affirmatively instruct that a deadlock was permissible. See Peterson, 530 N.W.2d at 846.
Because the substance of the judge’s response complied with the law, this factor weighs
strongly in favor of the state and of harmless error.
Although the evidence against Glover was not particularly strong, the substance of
the judge’s response was not coercive or otherwise erroneous. Thus, there is no reasonable

5 Glover also argues that “the record does not establish that the parties would not have
argued for providing the jury with a substantive response to the jury’s question that would
have provided clarity to the jury’s confusion about how to proceed.” Glover maintains that
this error was not harmless “because it deprived [him] of the opportunity to object.” But
Glover did have an opportunity to object. Fifteen minutes after the judge received and
responded to the jury’s note, the judge called the parties and notified them of her exchange
with the jury. Glover did not object to the out-of-court communication, nor to the
instruction provided by the judge.
14
likelihood that the error affected the outcome of the case. We therefore conclude that the
district court did not commit reversible error by answering the jury’s question outside
Glover’s presence.
III. The district court erred by entering convictions for both counts of
second-degree criminal sexual conduct.

The jury found Glover guilty of count one and count two. Glover’s warrant of
commitment shows that the district court entered convictions for both counts. Glover
argues—and the state concedes—that the district court erred by convicting Glover for both
counts because the counts arose from the same behavioral incident. We review this issue
de novo. State v. Bonkowske, 957 N.W.2d 437, 443 (Minn. App. 2021).
A criminal defendant “may be convicted of either the crime charged or an included
offense, but not both.” Minn. Stat. § 609.04, subd. 1 (2020). Thus, a district court cannot
enter judgments of conviction for “two counts of criminal sexual conduct (different
sections of the statute or different subsections) on the basis of the same act or unitary course
of conduct.” State v. Folley, 438 N.W.2d 372, 373 (Minn. 1989). When a defendant is
found guilty of more than one charge for the same conduct, the district court should
“adjudicate formally . . . on one count only.” State v. LaTourelle, 343 N.W.2d 277, 284
(Minn. 1984). The state has the burden of proving that acts arose out of separate behavioral
incidents to sustain multiple convictions. State v. Williams, 608 N.W.2d 837, 841-42
(Minn. 2000).
Here, the jury found Glover guilty of two counts of second-degree criminal sexual
conduct against daughter, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.343 (Supp. 2021). Under count
15
two, the complaint alleged multiple acts of sexual contact with a child under 16 years of
age, committed over a specific timeframe, where there was a significant relationship with
the child. Minn. Stat. § 609.343, subd. 1a(h)(iii). Under count one, the complaint alleged a
single act of sexual contact with a child under 13 years of age that occurred during the same
timeframe as count two. Id., subd. 1a(e). The state does not argue that the act underlying
count one arose out of a separate behavioral incident than the multiple acts underlying
count two. Accordingly, the district court erred when it entered convictions for both counts
of second-degree criminal sexual conduct. We therefore reverse and remand for the district
court to vacate one of Glover’s convictions and to amend the warrant of commitment ,
leaving the jury’s finding of guilt on both offenses intact.6
IV. Glover is not entitled to relief based on the arguments in his supplemental brief.

Glover raises five issues in a supplemental brief. Glover argues that (1) the evidence
is insufficient to sustain his convictions, (2) the prosecuting attorney engaged in
misconduct during closing arguments, (3) the district court erred by limiting Glover’s

6 In its brief, the state argues that this court “should remand Count II with instructions to
vacate the conviction and leave the guilty verdict unadjudicated.” If a defendant is
“formally adjudicated” guilty of both a crime and a lesser-included offense, the conviction
for the latter should be vacated. State v. Plan, 316 N.W.2d 727, 728-29 (Minn. 1982)
(quotation omitted). Count two is only a lesser-included offense of count one if it is
“necessarily proved” when count one is proved. Minn. Stat. § 609.04, subd. 1(4). Unlike
count one, count two requires multiple acts of abuse over an extended period, as well as a
significant relationship with the child. See Minn. Stat. § 609.343, subd. 1a(e), (h)(iii).
Because count two is not “necessarily proved” when count one is proved, it is not a
lesser-included offense. We therefore remand for the district court to decide which
conviction to vacate. See Folley, 438 N.W.2d at 373 (remanding for the district court to
vacate one of two convictions for criminal sexual conduct when both were based on the
same evidence of the same acts).
16
access to daughter’s video interview, (4) the state improperly investigated the case, and
(5) the district court erred by not striking inadmissible testimony from the social worker.
We address each argument in turn.
A. The evidence is sufficient to sustain Glover’s convictions.
Glover does not appear to contest some elements of the charges—for example, that
daughter was under 13 years old or that he had a significant relationship with her at the
time of the alleged offenses. Glover instead challenges the sufficiency of the evidence that
(1) he engaged in sexual contact with daughter under Minn. Stat. § 609.343, subd. 1a(e),
h(iii), and (2) the offenses occurred on May 18, 2022.
“When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, appellate courts carefully
examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from
them would permit the jury to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt.” State v. Griffin, 887 N.W.2d 257, 263 (quotation omitted)
(Minn. 2016). Appellate courts must view the evidence “in the light most favorable to the
verdict” and must assume that the jury “disbelieved any evidence that conflicted with the
verdict.” Id.
1. Evidence of Sexual Contact
To prove that Glover engaged in sexual contact with daughter, the state had to
present sufficient evidence that Glover intentionally touched daughter’s “intimate parts” or
17
“the clothing covering the immediate area of the intimate parts” with “sexual or aggressive
intent.” Minn. Stat. § 609.341, subd. 11(a)-(b) (Supp. 2021).
Glover argues that daughter’s testimony “did not show any accusation in this case”
and that the video interview was leading “and suggested [daughter’s] answers.”7 The state
counters that the video interview “was admitted as substantive evidence” and that any
argument about how the social worker asked the questions during the interview “goes to
the weight of the evidence.” The state argues that this court “must defer to the jury’s
determination that [daughter’s] statements during the interview were credible.” See State v.
Barshaw, 879 N.W.2d 356, 366 (Minn. 2016) (deferring to the factfinder’s credibility
determinations when analyzing the sufficiency of the evidence).
The state’s argument is persuasive. Although daughter did not testify about the
abuse at trial, she did testify that she told the truth during her interview. In the video
interview, which was shown to the jury, daughter spoke in detail about Glover touching
her “front part” and “back part”—which the social worker testified was daughter’s vagina
and butt—multiple times. Daughter also reported that the abuse started when she was seven
years old. J.L. and mother’s testimony corroborated daughter’s disclosures of the abuse .
Viewing the video interview and the other evidence in the light most favorable to the guilty
verdict, “the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from” the testimony would allow a

7 Glover does not appear to challenge the admissibility of the video interview on appeal
and did not object to its admission at trial.
18
jury to reasonably conclude that Glover engaged in sexual contact with daughter beyond a
reasonable doubt. Griffin, 887 N.W.2d at 263.
2. Evidence of the Offense Dates
Glover next argues that “there is nothing in this record anywhere showing anything
happened on May 18th, 2022”8 and that “[t]he phrase, ‘over an extended period of time,’
was missing in this case which is required.”9 We understand these arguments to mean that
the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the offenses occurred during the
timeframes listed in the amended complaint. The state counters that the prosecuting
attorney “did not have to prove when each offense occurred because that is not an element
of the crime.”
The precise date of an offense “is an essential element of the crime only where the
act done is unlawful during certain seasons, on certain days or at certain hours of the day.”
State v. Becker, 351 N.W.2d 923, 927 (Minn. 1984). “[S]pecific dates need not be charged
or proven in a sexual abuse case.” State v. Poole, 489 N.W.2d 537, 544 (Minn. App. 1992),
aff’d, 499 N.W.2d 31 (Minn. 1993); see also Minn. Stat. § 609.343, subd. 1a(e), h(iii) (not
listing a precise date as an element of the offenses).

8 Glover notes that, during the video interview on May 19, 2022, daughter stated that the
abuse “stopped a couple weeks ago” or “like last week.” Glover maintains that daughter’s
statement “negates the charging documents,” which state that the offenses occurred on or
about May 18, 2022.

9 Glover appears to refer to count two in the amended complaint, which only states that the
offense occurred “on or about” May 18, 2022. However, the charge description for count
two states that the sexual abuse occurred “over an extended period of time” and began
when daughter was seven years old.
19
Here, the district court instructed the jury that an element of each offense was that
they “took place on or about May 18th, 2022” and that count two involved “multiple acts
committed over an extended period of time.” Notably, a law enforcement officer testified
that mother reported the sexual abuse to police on May 18, 2022. Because the specific date
is not an essential element of either offense, and because daughter’s video interview and
the date of mother’s report supports the events having occurred “around” the specified
timeframe, we conclude that Glover is not entitled to relief based on insufficient evidence
of the offense dates.
B. Glover did not demonstrate that the prosecuting attorney engaged in
misconduct during closing arguments.

Glover next argues that the prosecuting attorney engaged in misconduct by
misstating the facts during closing arguments. Glover raises this argument for the first time
on appeal. Appellate courts review “unobjected-to prosecutorial misconduct under a
modified plain-error standard of review.” State v. Jones, 772 N.W.2d 496, 506 (Minn.
2009). The appellant must show “(1) error (2) that is plain.” Id. If the appellant shows plain
error, “then the burden shifts to the State to show that [the appellant’s] substantial rights
were not affected.” Id. If the appellant’s substantial rights were affected, then the appellate
court must consider “whether the error should be addressed to ensure fairness and the
integrity of the judicial proceedings.” Id. (quotation omitted).
“A prosecutor engages in prosecutorial misconduct when he violates clear or
established standards of conduct.” State v. McCray, 753 N.W.2d 746, 751 (Minn. 2008)
(quotation omitted). When evaluating alleged misconduct during a closing argument,
20
appellate courts consider “the closing argument as a whole, rather than just selective
phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence.” State v.
Munt, 831 N.W.2d 569, 587 (Minn. 2013) (quotation omitted). “During closing argument,
a prosecutor may argue all reasonable inferences from evidence in the record. It is
unprofessional conduct for the prosecutor intentionally to misstate the evidence or mislead
the jury as to the inferences it may draw.” State v. Bobo, 770 N.W.2d 129, 142 (Minn.
2009) (quotations omitted).
Glover challenges the following statements made by the prosecuting attorney during
closing arguments:
• “Sexual contact means the intentional touching by the
Defendant of [daughter’s] intimate parts, which include the
genital area, groin, inner thigh, buttocks, or breast. Either over
or under the clothing. It makes no difference. [Daughter]
testified that that happened.”

• “Fifth, that the sexual abuse involved multiple acts committed
over an extended period of time. And again, that’ s [daughter’ s]
testimony.”

• “And [daughter’ s] testimony was consistent that that always
occurred in the basement of their family home.”

• “We have a little girl who’s begging her mom, don’t go to darts
cuz she knows what happens when it’ s dart league.”

• “[J.L.’s mother] declined permission [for police] to speak to
her daughter. Said you know what, this has been tough enough,
I don’t want you to.”

• “We’re talking about something done in secret that [daughter]
wasn’t allowed to talk about.”

21
(Emphasis added.) Glover appears to argue that each of these statements either (1) states
facts not in evidence or (2) were not testified to at trial. The state counters that the
prosecuting attorney’s references to daughter’s “testimony” rather than her statements in
the video interview were “inadvertent mistake[s]” and that the other challenged statements
“constituted reasonable inferences from the evidence in the record, including the forensic
interview.”
To demonstrate prosecutorial misconduct as alleged, Glover must show that the
prosecuting attorney “intentionally” misstated the evidence. Id. While it is true that
daughter did not testify about the sexual abuse or where it occurred, she did describe those
facts in her video interview, which was admitted as substantive evidence that Glover
sexually abused daughter. Glover offers no evidence that the prosecuting attorney’s
references to daughter’s “testimony” were intentional. In any event, these misstatements
did not prejudice Glover because the facts discussed by the prosecuting attorney were in
the video interview that was shown to the jury.
Record evidence supports the other statements made by the prosecuting attorney
during closing arguments. First, m other agreed at trial that daughter asked her “to not go
to dart league,” and daughter stated in the video interview that the sexual abuse occurred
when mother was “at darts.” From that evidence, it is reasonable to infer that daughter
asked mother not to go to darts so daughter could avoid the sexual abuse. Second, a law
enforcement officer testified that J.L.’s mother “didn’t want [the officer] to interview, or
take a taped statement” from J.L. during the sexual- abuse investigation. From that
testimony, it is reasonable to infer that J.L.’s mother did not want J.L. involved in the case
22
because the situation was “tough enough.” Finally, daughter stated in the video interview
that Glover “told [her] not to tell anyone” about the abuse, and J.L. agreed that daughter
told her a “secret about somebody hurting her.” From that evidence, as well as the general
nature of child-sexual- abuse cases, it is reasonable to infer that the sexual abuse was
“something done in secret.”
Because no record evidence suggests that the prosecuting attorney’s references to
daughter’s “testimony” were intentional, and because the other challenged statements were
reasonable inferences based on the evidence, Glover failed to show that any prosecutorial
misconduct occurred.
C. The district court did not abuse its discretion by limiting Glover’s access
to daughter’s video interview.

Before trial, Glover waived his right to counsel in a written petition and exercised
his right to represent himself. Glover also moved to compel the state “to produce a copy of
the forensic interview.” At a hearing, the prosecuting attorney noted that Glover was
“certainly entitled to review that forensic interview,” and that “a copy of the disc” was
made available to him “during business hours” at the county attorney’s office. The
prosecuting attorney added: “But given the sensitive nature of the forensic interview, and
Mr. Glover being a . . . pro se litigant, we have not provided him a copy.” The district court
23
determined that a copy of the forensic interview “will be available for viewing at the county
attorney’s office.”
Glover appears to argue that the district court erred by limiting his access to the
video interview. 10 The district court has “wide discretion to issue discovery orders and,
absent clear abuse of that discretion,” its discovery orders will not be disturbed. Underdahl
v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety (In re Comm’r of Pub. Safety), 735 N.W.2d 706, 711 (Minn.
2007) (quotation omitted). Appellate courts “review a district court’s order for an abuse of
discretion by determining whether the district court made findings unsupported by the
evidence or by improperly applying the law.” Id.
Glover does not dispute that he had an opportunity to view the video interview at
the county attorney’s office. Instead, Glover argues that he was entitled to a copy of the
video interview because he represented himself. Glover maintains that he “was not able to
send the disc to experts because [he] was not allowed a copy to send,” and that making an
expert witness travel to International Falls to view the video “would have been extremely
cost-prohibitive and no attorney would have had to do the same.” The state counters that
Glover “fails to make any legal argument that [the district court’s] discovery ruling was
plainly erroneous” or that the prosecuting attorney’s limited disclosure of the video
interview “was plain misconduct.”

10 Glover’s supplemental brief characterizes the limited disclosure of the video interview
as unobjected-to prosecutorial misconduct. However, the district court made a discovery
ruling on this issue and Glover notes that “the problem was brought up at several hearings”
before the district court. Therefore, we analyze the issue as a discovery ruling by the district
court.
24
Minnesota’s discovery rules state that “[m]aterials furnished to a party under
discovery rules or orders must remain in the party’s custody and be used by the party only
to conduct that attorney’s side of the case and may be subject to other conditions the court
orders.” Minn. R. Crim. P. 9.03, subd. 4. Further, a district court “granting discovery must
specify the time, place, and manner of discovery, and may impose reasonable terms and
conditions.” Id., subd. 3.
Here, the video interview includes a nine-year-old’s disclosure of sexual abuse.
Glover’s brief only cites rule 9.03, which allows the district court to impose “reasonable
terms and conditions” on discovery. Id. Given the sensitive nature of daughter’s interview,
limiting Glover’s access to the video was reasonable. Therefore, the district court did not
abuse its discretion when it made this discovery ruling.
D. Glover did not demonstrate an error in the state’s criminal investigation.

Glover next argues that the prosecuting attorney “refused to investigate” the case
according to protocol. He notes that the prosecuting attorney failed to interview certain
individuals, including daughter’s friends, brother, teacher, and neighbors. The state
counters that Glover “lacks legal authority to support the claim” that the prosecuting
attorney committed “misconduct that is plain,” and that Glover “did not suffer prejudice
because he was not precluded from interviewing or otherwise investigating other potential
witnesses.”
Glover did not object to this alleged misconduct during district court proceedings;
therefore, we review this issue using the modified plain-error standard described above.
Jones, 772 N.W.2d at 506. In his supplemental brief, Glover only cites State v. Fields for
25
the proposition that a prosecuting attorney’s acts may constitute misconduct “if they have
the effect of materially undermining the fairness of a trial” or violate “clear or established
standards of conduct, e.g., rules, laws, orders by a district court, or clear commands in this
state’s case law.” 730 N.W.2d 777, 782 (Minn. 2007). Glover, however, does not point to
a rule, law, order, or caselaw that was violated by the prosecuting attorney’s investigation.
“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or
authorities in appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless
prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” State v. Andersen, 871 N.W.2d 910, 915
(Minn. 2015) (quotation omitted). Because prejudicial error is not obvious on mere
inspection of the record, we conclude that Glover waived this issue on appeal.
E. The district court did not commit plain error by failing to sua sponte
strike the social worker’s testimony about daughter’s credibility.

On cross-examination, Glover asked the social worker about the Child First protocol
used during daughter’s video interview. During that questioning, the following exchange
occurred, with the relevant answer italicized:
Q: Okay. And you asked [daughter] if I put anything in her
vagina, didn’t you?
A: I have to clarify.

. . . .

Q: And there’s no roundabout way of asking a little girl
outside of that direct question where she would not have that
image in her mind for the rest of her life probably?
A: She has a lot of images in her mind for the rest of her life.
26
Q: (Laughs.) Yeah. And who put those images in her head?
A: You did. You committed that crime.

(Emphasis added.)
Glover argues that the social worker “conducted the interview as an advocate rather
than an independent forensic interviewer.” Glover appears to argue that the district court
erred by not sua sponte striking the social worker’s testimony that he committed the crime.
Because Glover did not object to this testimony during trial, and did not ask the district
court to strike the testimony, we review the challenged testimony under the traditional
plain-error test. See Myhre, 875 N.W.2d at 804-05.
We first consider whether the challenged testimony was admissible. See Webster,
894 N.W.2d at 787 (“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, which is typically established
if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotations omitted)).
Generally, a forensic interviewer in a child- sex-abuse case may not testify directly or
indirectly to their opinion about the credibility of the interviewed victim. State v. Wembley,
712 N.W.2d 783, 791- 92 (Minn. 2006), aff’d 728 N.W.2d 243 (Minn. 2007). A forensic
interviewer’s opinion testimony that the complainant had been sexually abused is also
inadmissible as vouching testimony. State v. Morales-Mulato, 744 N.W.2d 679, 688
(Minn. App. 2008), rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 29, 2008). Here, the social worker’s testimony
that Glover “committed that crime” goes toward daughter’s credibility and is inadmissible
vouching. See id.
The state argues that the district court’s failure to strike this inadmissible testimony
was not plain, because “district courts are generally not required to intrude into the trial
27
without request” and “doing so risks interfering with the presentation of the evidence and
with trial strategy.” See State v. Washington, 693 N.W.2d 195, 205 (Minn. 2005)
(discussing improperly admitted evidence and stating: “We do not agree that the district
court must, or even should, interfere with the trial strategy of the defendant. To act sua
sponte here would risk highlighting or enforcing rights that the defendant had, for tactical
reasons, decided to waive”). We need not determine whether the distr ict court’s failure to
sua sponte strike the inadmissible testimony was plain error, however, because Glover did
not demonstrate that the error affected his substantial rights.
Under the third step of the plain-error test, Glover bears the heavy burden “of
establishing that there is a reasonable likelihood that the absence of the error would have
had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” Horst, 880 N.W.2d at 38 (quotation omitted).
In his supplemental brief, Glover does not argue that the challenged testimony prejudiced
his case. Thus, he failed to demonstrate that any plain error in not striking the social
worker’s testimony affected his substantial rights. Glover is therefore not entitled to relief
on this issue.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.