Beltrami County District Court File No. 04-CR-11-1317.
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Timothy R. Faver, Beltrami County Attorney, Annie P. Claesson-Huseby, Chief Assistant County Attorney, Bemidji, Minnesota (for respondent)
Lauren Campoli, The Law Office of Lauren Campoli, P.L.L.C., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Kirk, Presiding Judge; Kalitowski, Judge; and Chutich, Judge.
Appellant Gary Teigland challenges his conviction of felony domestic assault. Appellant argues that: (1) the district court failed to obtain a valid waiver of his right to a jury trial on the felony-enhancement element of his offense; (2) the district court abused its discretion by allowing his 2003 assault convictions to be admitted as prior relationship evidence under Minn. Stat. § 634.20 (2012); (3) he received ineffective assistance of counsel; and (4) the district court abused its discretion by admitting a video and transcript into evidence where an officer opined on the ultimate issue in the case. We affirm.
To be convicted of felony domestic assault, one must commit misdemeanor domestic assault and have two or more prior domestic-violence-related convictions within the previous ten years. Minn. Stat. § 609.2242, subd. 4 (2012). Appellant argues that his stipulation to the requisite prior-conviction element was not valid, knowing, or intelligent because his stipulation was based on the district court's inaccurate assurances. Appellant argues that in order to obtain his waiver, the district court misled him in two ways. First, the district court erroneously told appellant that he could not present evidence challenging his prior convictions. Second, the district court erroneously told appellant that if he stipulated to having two prior domestic-violence-related convictions, evidence of those convictions would not be seen by the jury. But the district court later allowed evidence of appellant's prior convictions to be introduced as relationship evidence under Minn. Stat. § 634.20.
For any offense punishable by incarceration, a defendant has a constitutional right to a jury trial. U.S. Const. amend. VI; Minn. Const. art. I, § 6; Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.01, subd. 1(1)(a) (2012). This right "includes the right to be tried on each and every element of the charged offense." State v. Wright, 679 N.W.2d 186, 191 (Minn.App. 2004), review denied (Minn. June 24, 2004). By stipulating to an element of the offense, the defendant waives his right to a jury trial on that element. State v. Kuhlmann, 806 N.W.2d 844, 848 (Minn. 2011). "Because the right to a jury trial is a fundamental right, waiver of this right must be personal, explicit, and in accordance with rule 26.01." State v. Fluker, 781 N.W.2d 397, 400 (Minn.App. 2010). Rule 26.01 requires that a defendant's waiver be in writing or on the record in court, after being advised of the right to trial by jury and having an opportunity to consult with counsel. Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.01, subd. 1(2)(a). Whether a defendant properly waived his right to a jury trial under rule 26.01 is a question this court will review de novo. State v. Tlapa, 642 N.W.2d 72, 74 (Minn.App. 2002), review denied (Minn. June 18, 2002).
The record here indicates that the requirements of rule 26.01 have been satisfied. Appellant was represented by counsel. Appellant was advised of his right to a jury trial by the district court and had ample opportunity to consult with his attorney. And the record shows that appellant's attorney repeatedly advised him to stipulate that he had two prior domestic-violence-related offenses. Moreover, appellant was personally examined by the state and agreed on the record to stipulate.
[Prosecutor]: Now, you understand that presumption, not guilty, remains with you until the State proves your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. You understand that? [Appellant]: Yup. . . . .
Q: You understand that each crime has certain element[s]. For example, in this case before you would be convicted, the State would have to prove that you committed an act with intent to cause [V.W.] fear of immediate bodily harm and death. We would have to prove that [V.W.] is a member of your family or household and we'd have to prove that you ...