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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A24-1165

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Bee Yang,
Appellant.

Filed June 9, 2025
Affirmed
Bjorkman, Judge

Nicollet County District Court
File No. 52-CR-23-74

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Lydia Villalva Lijó, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul,
Minnesota; and

Michelle Zehnder Fischer, Nicollet County Attorney, St. Peter, Minnesota (for respondent)

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

Considered and decided by Bjorkman, Presiding Judge; Connolly, Judge; and Segal,
Judge.
∗

∗ Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
2
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
BJORKMAN, Judge
Appellant challenges his conviction of identity theft involving 8 or more victims
and 9 of his 11 convictions of mail theft, arguing that (1) insufficient evidence supports his
identity-theft conviction, which requires both reversal of that conviction and vacation of
the resulting $53,000 restitution order; and (2) insufficient evidence supports 9 of his mail-
theft convictions. We affirm.
FACTS
In March 2023, appellant Bee Yang was living in R.C.’s apartment. The apartment
consisted of three rooms—a main room, a bedroom, and a bathroom. R.C. used the main
room as her bedroom, and Yang used the bedroom and kept his belongings in there.
On March 14, Yang was alone in the apartment when police conducted a warranted
search of the apartment related to suspected drug use. During the search, police recovered
various items that led them to suspect that R.C. and Yang were involved in fraud, forgery,
or theft, and they obtained a second warrant to expand the search. From the bedroom, they
recovered three checks and a debit card not in R.C.’s or Yang’s name, as well as a
typewriter and a gasoline additive that is commonly used to fade ink or “wash” checks. In
the main room, police found several bags, including a red bag containing numerous identity
documents. Also in that room, police saw an open space in the ceiling where a ceiling
panel was “off.” Inside this open space, they found a plastic grocery bag that contained
items of “recent” mail, all bearing the names of others—not R.C. or Yang.
3
Police also searched Yang’s phone, finding the following exchange of text messages
between R.C. and Yang from the day before the search. R.C. said: “Dude we gotta get a
MICR[1] printer! That check didn’t go through cuz says ‘Altered.’ So stop gambling all
yo money away Bee frfr.” Yang responded (although the message did not go through) by
saying, “Both check did.”
Yang agreed to speak with police and said that he slept in the bedroom and that the
items in that room were his. He said that he had been staying there for about a month and
had a key to the apartment door. Yang explained that R.C. was stealing mail and forging
checks but denied that he was involved. But he also, at times, referred to himself as a
“middleman” or an “associate” in R.C.’s theft and forgery.
Respondent State of Minnesota charged Yang with 4 counts of check forgery;
11 counts of mail theft based on knowing possession of stolen mail; and 1 count of identity
theft involving 8 or more victims.2 Yang waived his right to a jury trial. During the bench
trial, the officers involved in the search of the apartment and the ensuing investigation
testified to the facts described above. The state also presented the testimony of numerous
people whose mail and identity documents or those of their family members (or both) were
found in the apartment—none of whom knew Yang or had given him permission to have
their documents. And to show intent, preparation, common scheme or plan, and absence
of mistake, the state also presented evidence of several of Yang’s prior convictions: a June

1 “MICR” stands for magnetic ink and character recognition.

2 Yang was also charged with and convicted of a controlled- substance offense, but that
conviction is not at issue in this appeal.
4
2022 conviction of identity theft, an August 2022 conviction of check forgery, and a July
2016 conviction of check forgery.
The district court found Yang guilty of 1 check-forgery count, all 11 counts of mail
theft, and the 1 count of identity theft, and convicted him of each of those offenses. It
imposed a prison sentence and ordered Yang to pay restitution of $53,000 for the identity
theft—$1,000 for each victim identified in the state’s restitution certificate.
Yang appeals.
DECISION
When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we carefully
review the record “to determine whether the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn
therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the [fact-
finder] to reach its verdict.” Lapenotiere v. State, 916 N.W.2d 351, 360-61 (Minn.
2018) (quotation omitted). Where, as here, “a conviction is based on circumstantial
evidence, we apply a heightened, two -step standard of review to decide whether the
evidence is sufficient.” State v. Colgrove, 996 N.W.2d 145, 150 (Minn. 2023); see also
State v. Olson, 982 N.W.2d 491, 496 (Minn. App. 2022) (stating that this same standard
applies for bench trials and jury trials). First, we identify the “circumstances proved.”
Colgrove, 996 N.W.2d at 150 (quotation omitted). This requires us to “winnow down the
evidence presented at trial by resolving all questions of fact in favor of the [fact -finder’s]
verdict, resulting in a subset of facts that constitute the circumstances proved.” State v.
Harris, 895 N.W.2d 592, 600 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted). In doing so, we disregard
evidence that is inconsistent with the verdict. Id. at 601. Second, we independently
5
consider what reasonable inferences may be drawn from the circumstances proved.
Colgrove, 996 N.W.2d at 150. The reasonable inferences must be consistent with guilt and
“inconsistent with any rational hypothesis other than guilt.” Id. (quotation omitted).
I. Sufficient evidence supports Yang’s conviction of identity theft involving eight
or more victims.

The state was required to prove that Yang “possesse[d] . . . an identity that is not
[his] own, with the intent to commit, aid, or abet any unlawful activity,” and that the offense
“involve[d] eight or more direct victims.” Minn. Stat. § 609.527, subds. 2, 3(5) (2022).
Yang does not dispute that the state proved that police found in the apartment documents
associated with well over eight people, or that these documents contain information that
satisfies the “identity” element of the offense .3 He disputes only the sufficiency of the
evidence that he possessed all of these documents.
Possession here means constructive, not actual or physical, possession. The state
can prove a defendant constructively possessed an item by showing (1) it was in a place
“under the defendant’s exclusive control to which other people normally did not have
access,” or (2) it was in a place to which others had access but “there is a strong probability
(inferable from other evidence) that at the time the defendant was consciously or knowingly
exercising dominion and control over it.” Harris, 895 N.W.2d at 601 (citing State v.
Florine, 226 N.W.2d 609, 611 (Minn. 1975)). The latter of these requires not merely

3 The term “identity” means “any name, number, or data transmission that may be used,
alone or in conjunction with any other information, to identify a specific individual or
entity.” Minn. Stat. § 609.527, subd. 1( d) (2022). It includes information like Social
Security numbers, account numbers, government-issued identification numbers, and even
names and dates of birth. Id.
6
proximity or easy access but “ability and intent to exercise dominion and control.” Id. at
601-02. That someone other than the defendant is also able and intending to exercise
dominion and control over an item does not negate the defendant’s constructive possession
because “[a] defendant may possess an item jointly with another person.” Id. at 601.
Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the guilty verdicts, the state proved
the following circumstances relevant to possession. Yang had keys to the apartment, with
access to the main room, and generally slept in the bedroom. He was alone in the apartment
when police searched it and acknowledged sleeping in the main room the night before the
search. Police recovered identity documents and other materials from three locations in
the apartment. First, in Yang’s bedroom, police discovered three checks and a debit card
that were not Yang’s; they were located near items used to alter checks, and the checks
appeared to have been altered. Second, in a plastic bag in an opening in the ceiling of the
main room, police found recent mail and numerous identity documents, none of which
belonged to Yang. Among those items were the pieces of mail from which the checks in
Yang’s room had been taken. Third, in a red bag in the main room, police found more
recent mail and identity documents—again, none of them Yang’s. Among those items
were Social Security cards and other identity documents for people with the same surname
as the debit card found in Yang’s room.
In addition to these items, police also recovered a text message exchange between
Yang and R.C. in which they discussed depositing checks and an MICR printer like those
that financial institutions use for checks. In his statements to police, Yang also did not
7
consistently deny any connection to the stolen documents; sometimes he told police that
he was an “associate” or “middleman” in the process of using them.
Yang acknowledges that these circumstances proved amply establish that he
possessed five people’s identity documents— those found in his bedroom. But he contends
that they do not exclude the reasonable possibility that he did not know about, and therefore
did not possess, the identity documents found elsewhere in the apartment. He posits, for
example, that it would be reasonable to envision a scenario in which he played a small role
in an identity -theft scheme that R.C. helmed, not knowing the full scale of the scheme.
This contention is unavailing because it does not account for the full circumstantial
picture—Yang’s ready access to all three caches of identity documents, the connections
between the documents found in his room and elsewhere in the apartment, the text
messages and his own statements to police indicating his involvement in check forgery
(and his unchallenged check-forgery conviction), and his history of multiple similar
offenses that tends to belie any claim of mistaken proximity to or marginal involvement in
identity theft. When we consider all of these circumstances, the only reasonable inference
is that Yang possessed all of the identity documents found in the apartment. As such,
sufficient circumstantial evidence supports his conviction of identity theft involving eight
or more victims.4

4 Yang also argues that, if we agree that the evidence is insufficient to support his identity-
theft conviction, we should also vacate the restitution order that is based on that conviction.
Because his insufficiency claim fails and he identifies no other error in the restitution order,
his challenge to the restitution order also fails.
8
II. Sufficient evidence supports Yang’s nine challenged convictions of mail theft.

The crime of mail theft can occur in various ways. A person commits mail theft if
they intentionally deceive a mail carrier, or if they “intentionally and without claim of
right” remove mail from a “mail depository ,” take it from a mail carrier, remove the
contents of mail addressed to another, or take mail (or its contents) left for collection.
Minn. Stat. § 609.529, subd. 2(1)-(5) (2022). Or, as pertinent here, they commit mail theft
if they possess mail “obtained by” any of those acts, “knowing or having reason to know
the mail was obtained illegally.” Id., subd. 2(6) (2022).
Yang was convicted under this last definition of mail theft and again challenges the
sufficiency of the evidence that he possessed the items of mail found outside his bedroom.
This challenge encompasses nine of his mail-theft convictions. But the same circumstances
and inferences that we detailed above apply and defeat his argument. Moreover, Yang
implicitly recognizes the shortfall in his argument by acknowledging that two of his
convictions rest on sufficient circumstantial evidence because they pertain to items of
stolen mail found in the ceiling for which the corresponding checks were found in his
bedroom. Taking into account all of the circumstances proved, including the fact that the
items of stolen mail that he disputes possessing were bundled together with those he
acknowledges possessing, the possibility that Yang did not possess all of the stolen mail is
so improbable as to be unreasonable. As such, his claim of insufficient evidence fails.
Affirmed.