State of Minnesota v. Rashard Dujuan Ross

Park Rapids, Minnesota criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition, etc.

Rashard Dujuan Ross's encounter with law enforcement during the evening of January 20, 2022, are limited to information contained in the complaint. On that evening, law enforcement from the Hubbard County Sheriff's Department initiated a traffic stop of a vehicle after it repeatedly crossed over the highway's center line. Law enforcement observed four people in the vehicle, including Ross, who was sitting in the back seat with another person. Law enforcement determined that the driver was intoxicated, observed drug paraphernalia and residue consistent with controlled substances in the center console of the vehicle, and recovered drug paraphernalia and controlled substances from the driver's person after a search incident to arrest for driving while intoxicated.



Law enforcement asked Ross to step out of the vehicle, conducted a pat-down search of Ross for weapons, and searched the vehicle. Law enforcement then discovered two lockboxes: the first was in the rear driver-side door and contained residue consistent with a controlled substance, and the second was on the floor of the vehicle between where the two rear passengers had been seated. The second lockbox contained hollowed-out pens with burnt ends and residue consistent with controlled substances, a paper bindle containing a substance consistent with methamphetamine, and a bottle of methadone. Based on this search, Ross was placed under arrest for possession of a controlled substance. During a search of Ross's person incident to his arrest, law enforcement found bundles of



3



cash totaling $5,837 and a digital scale with residue of a controlled substance. In a search of the vehicle, law enforcement later found a firearm with a round in the chamber and a magazine of ammunition "under the rear-seat cushion in the middle of the vehicle, in a location that would have been under Ross's right side."



On January 21, 2022, the state charged Ross with unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition in violation of Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd. 1(2) (2020), and fifth-degree possession of a controlled substance in violation of Minn. Stat. § 152.025, subd. 2(1) (2020). On January 31, 2022, the state submitted the firearm and substances to the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) for forensic testing. In May 2022, Ross appeared before the district court and requested a continuance of the omnibus hearing because the parties were waiting for the BCA to complete DNA testing of the firearm. Four more hearings took place on or before February 2023, and at each hearing, the matter was continued because the BCA still had not tested the firearm.



At a hearing on April 24, 2023, counsel for the state reported that the BCA was "still working on cases for DNA from January 1, 2022," and that the BCA estimated "it would be another three to four months for DNA testing to be complete." Counsel for the state also said that, if the state could collect a DNA sample from Ross, the BCA could avoid further delays by immediately comparing Ross's DNA sample to any profile found on the firearm. The district court noted that, at the end of the previous hearing in February, the state had discussed filing such a discovery motion. Counsel for the state acknowledged that it had not yet filed the motion. The district court requested that the state do so to move the process along. Ross did not object.



The state filed a motion for a buccal swab pursuant to Minn. R. Crim. P. 9.02, subd. 2(1),[1] on June 21, 2023-18 months after the state submitted the firearm to the BCA for testing. The district court granted the motion and directed Ross to travel to Hubbard County to provide a buccal-swab sample within 30 days. Ross complied with this order.



In July 2023, a BCA report showed that the national DNA index system matched the DNA profile from the firearm in this case with a DNA sample from Texas's database and that the match indicated the DNA on the firearm was Ross's DNA. Counsel for the state informed the district court of this result at a hearing in September 2023 and stated they expected that the BCA would produce a report with the results from Ross's buccal-swab sample soon.



At an October 30 hearing, counsel for the state informed the district court that the buccal-swab sample had been collected, but it was incorrectly submitted to the database, and therefore the BCA could not use the sample. Ross's attorney then requested that the district court dismiss the case because Ross was prejudiced by the length of time the case had been pending. The district court ordered the state to collect another buccal-swab sample from Ross within 30 days and stated that, if the state failed to do so, the court would consider Ross's dismissal request.



* * *



CRIMINAL LAW. PRETRIAL EVIDENCE SUPPRESSION. The case involves the State of Minnesota's appeal against a district court's pretrial order that precludes the use of certain DNA evidence due to the state's failure to collect it by a designated deadline. The appeal was dismissed because the state could not demonstrate that the exclusion of the evidence would have a critical impact on prosecuting the case successfully, given that the evidence was speculative and the state had other admissible evidence to support its prosecution.



CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. SANCTIONS FOR DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS. The district court sanctioned the state by precluding the use of DNA evidence after the state failed to collect a DNA sample by the court's deadline. The court found that the state provided no justification for its failure to comply with the discovery order. The appellate court upheld the sanction, noting that the district court did not abuse its discretion, particularly since potential possession evidence could still be established without the DNA evidence.



Key Phrases Pretrial order precluding evidence. Critical impact on prosecution. DNA evidence exclusion. Constructive possession doctrine. Allegation of firearm possession.

Appeal dismissed.