Compatible with: Toshiba Satellite A105. Device ID: USB VID0421&PID03A7. Download Drivers: Download Nokia C5-00 Driver. Device Name: ZSMC USB PC Camera. State of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Alton James Horne, Appellant. Filed February 13, 2001. Peterson, Judge. The driver lost control, and the. Nokia PC Suite is a collection of tools that allows your Nokia handset to connect to your Windows machine and sync data, back up your phone's contents, push software updates to your phone, as well.
RM- 745 Nokia C5-00 by longdaigia Posted by Athul at 41900 pm Labels. Read: Nokia Flashing Cable Driver 8.6 0.2 Download Posted by Nokia unofficial Sunday 8 April 2012 Labels.
This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2000).
STATE OFMINNESOTA
INCOURT OF APPEALS
State of Minnesota,
Respondent,
v.
Alton James Horne,
Appellant.
Filed February13, 2001
Affirmed
Peterson,Judge
File No. 97100448
Mike Hatch, Attorney General, Hilary LindellCaligiuri, Assistant Attorney General, 525 Park Street, Suite 500, St. Paul,MN 55103; and
Amy Klobuchar, Hennepin County Attorney,Linda K. Jenny, Assistant County Attorney, C-2000 Government Center,Minneapolis, MN 55487 (for respondent)
William E. McGee, Fourth District PublicDefender, Warren R. Sagstuen, Assistant Public Defender, 317 Second AvenueSouth, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55401 (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Peterson, PresidingJudge, Lansing,Judge, and Stoneburner,Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I NI O N
PETERSON, Judge
In this appeal from a conviction of theft of a motor vehicle, appellantAlton Horne argues that the trial court erred in ruling that his statement topolice about exiting the stolen car was admissible as an admission by a partyopponent. Horne also argues thatevidence that he was the first person to leave the car and that he left throughthe driver's door was insufficient to prove that he was the driving the stolencar. We affirm.
One of the officers in the second squad car,Officer McCormick, immediately ran to the Oldsmobile to apprehend thedriver. The doors on the passenger sideof the Oldsmobile were damaged and would not open, and the rear doors werelocked with child safety locks, so everyone in the car got out through thedriver’s door. None of the officers sawwho was driving the car before the crash, but McCormick and several otherofficers noted in their reports that Horne was the first person to exit thevehicle.
McCormick wrote in his report:
I immediatelyexited my squad and apprehended the driver of the Olds, which is a confirmedstolen car. I ID’d the driver of thestolen car as ALTON JAMES HORNE[.] * * *
Officer Wente stated in hisreport:
Officers * * * rushed to the doors of thestolen vehicle and brought the occupants out at gunpoint. [HORNE] was witnessed by myself attemptingto exit the driver’s seat in an attempt to flee, but was taken into custody byOFFICER MCCORMICK before he could clear the car’s door.
The two peoplethat were in the front seat and the adult male that was arrested for this, hewas the first one to come out. The other guy kinda slid[] out behind him[.] * ** I didn’t actually see him driving, but, he was in position to, there is noway the other guy was going to crawl out over him[.]
(Quotationsand emphasis omitted.)
Oh, absolutelynot, they couldn’t have done that because impact happened so quickly and I wasout of that car in a second[.] Cause Iknew they were going to try to bail[.] So, that’s why I wanted to make sure, I rounded them up right away[.]There was not enough time for them to switch positions[.]
(Quotationsand emphasis omitted.)
I was in aposition to see the two front seat passengers[.] The two in the back, I’m notactually sure on [their] positions[.] Cause I was focused more on the driver and the front seat passenger[.]
(Quotationsand emphasis omitted.)
Green sustained an injury to his forehead,which Horne claims was caused by Green hitting his head on the steering wheelduring the collision.
The parties agreed to a trial on stipulatedfacts and stipulated to the admission of the police and investigatorreports. However, Horne moved tosuppress his statement to Tatge that he was the second person out of thecar. The district court admitted thestatement as a nonhearsay admission. Attrial, Horne stipulated that he was the first person out of the car andmaintained that, to get out of the car, he climbed over Green, who wasdriving. The trial court found Horneguilty of theft of a motor vehicle.
1. This court largely defers to the trial court’sevidentiary rulings, which will not be overturned absent a clear abuse ofdiscretion. State v. Kelly, 435 N.W.2d807, 813 (Minn. 1989). Even if thetrial court errs in admitting evidence, “[a] reversal is warranted only whenthe error substantially influences the jury to convict.” State v. Occhino, 572 N.W.2d 316, 321(Minn. App. 1997) (quoting State v. Loebach, 310 N.W.2d 58, 64 (Minn.1981)), reviewdenied (Minn. Jan. 28, 1998).
Minn. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(A) provides:
A statement is not hearsay if:
* * * *
(2) Admission by party-opponent. The statement is offered against a party andis (A) the party’s own statement, in either an individual or a representativecapacity * * *.
Citing State v. Palmer, 507 N.W.2d 865 (Minn.App. 1993), reviewdenied (Minn. Jan. 14, 1994), Horne argues that his statement toTatge that he was the second person to get out of the Oldsmobile was not anadmission under rule 801(d)(2)(A) because it was consistent with his positionat trial that he was not guilty. In Palmer,this court stated:
Under rule804(b)(3), an exception to the hearsay rule, the statement must be against thedeclarant’s interest when made and the declarant must be unavailable as awitness. Rule 801, on the other hand,applies to words or actions inconsistent with a party’s position at trial,relevant to the substantive issues in the case, and offered against theparty. Statements that meet rule 801requirements need not satisfy the hearsay exception requirement that theypossess circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness because the party againstwhom the statement is offered is present in the courtroom and may cross-examinethe witness offering the statement or otherwise present evidence explaining thestatement.
Id. at867-68 (citations omitted).
Citing State v. Weber, 272 Minn. 243, 137 N.W.2d527 (1965), Horne argues that his statement to Tatge was not an admission underrule 801(d)(2)(A) because the statement did not contain an inference of guilt. In Weber, the supreme court stated:
An “admission”is, after all, a statement, direct or implied, of facts tending to establishguilt. It does not necessarilyconstitute an acknowledgement of guilt but of facts and circumstances, which,if taken in connection with proof of other facts, may permit an inference ofguilt.
Id. at 254, 137N.W.2d at 535.
In thatcircumstance, the admission discredits the party’s statements inconsistent withthe present claim asserted in pleadings and testimony, much like a witnessimpeached by contradictory statements.
Charles T.McCormick, McCormickon Evidence § 254, at 136 (John W. Strong ed., 5th ed. 1999).
Nokia C5-00 Usb Driver
2. A “conviction based entirely oncircumstantial evidence merits stricter scrutiny than convictions based in parton direct evidence.” State v.Jones, 516 N.W.2d 545, 549 (Minn. 1994) (citations omitted). The circumstantial evidence must form acomplete chain that, in view of the evidence as a whole, leads so directly tothe guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt anyreasonable inference other than guilt. Id.
Horne argues that because there was no directobservation of him driving the car, his conviction is based on circumstantialevidence, and the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to prove beyond areasonable doubt that he was driving. Horne contends that the evidence is consistent with his theory thatGreen was driving and suffered a head injury on the steering wheel, and Horne scrambledover Green to get out of the car first.
But McCormick’s report did not just statethat Horne was the first person to get out of the car. McCormick stated that he apprehended Horne“as he was exiting from behind the wheel of the stolen car.” And Tatgeindicated in his report that McCormick told him that Horne was in a position todrive and “there is no way [the passenger] was going to crawl out over [thedriver].” Also, Wente stated in his report that he witnessed Horne “attemptingto exit the driver’s seat in an attempt to flee.” These statements directly contradict Horne’s claim that heclimbed over Green to get out of the car.
This court, in reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of theevidence, must assume the factfinder believed the state’s witnesses anddisbelieved contrary evidence. Thiscourt must view the evidence and any reasonable inferences that could be drawnfrom it in a light most favorable to the state.
State v. Day,501 N.W.2d 649, 652 (Minn. App. 1993) (citations omitted). Viewed in the light most favorable to thestate, McCormick’s and Wente’s statements exclude beyond a reasonable doubt theinference that Horne was a passenger in the Oldsmobile even though he was thefirst person to get out of the car through the driver’s door.
Nokia C5-00 Usb Driver Download
Affirmed.