You are on page 1of 10

01 :FICEOF

DAKOTACOUNTYATT I)RNEY

JAMESC.BACKSTROM
C()UNTYAWIT)RNEY
DakotaC )untyJudicialCenter

560Highway55

Hastings,Minnesota55033,2392
ADDRESSSER VICEREQU ESTED
0OCEOR DEIRDRE
30 530THSTCTS

STCLOUD
630i
OFFICE OF DAKOTA COUNTY ATTORNEY
JAMES C. BACKSTROM
COUNTY ATTORNEY

Dakota County Judicial Center (651 ) 438-4438


1560 Highway 55 Fax: (651 ) 438-4479 (Civil Division)
Hastings, Minnesota 55033-2392 Fax: (651 ) 438-4300 (Criminal Division)
Phillip D. Prokopowicz, Chief Deputy Fax: (651 ) 438-4499 (Administrative
Division)
Karen A. Schaffer, First Assistant E-mail: attorney@co.dakota.rnn.us
September 22, 2016

DEIRDRE ELISE EVAVOLD

30TH ET
ST CLOUD MN 56301

Re: State of Minnesota v. Deirdre Elise Evavold


Our File No. CA-2015-02691
District Court File No. 19HA-CR-15-4227

Dear Ms. Evavold:

Enclosed herein and served upon you please find the State's Notice of Motion and Motions
in Limine in the above-captioned matter.

Sincerely,

Kathryn M. Keena Criminal Division Office Manager Jennye Croft


Assistant County Attorney Kathryn M. Keena, An Equal Opportunity
Head Employer
Civil Division
Enclosure Victim/Witness
Supervisor Jay R. Stasscn, Head
Kelly Child Support Enforcement
Nicholson Division
30% post-consumer Sandra M. Torgerson, Head
Community Relations
Director
Monica Jensen
STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL


DISTRICT
State of Minnesota, Court File No. 19HA-CR-1S-
4227

Plaintiff,

NOTICE OF MOTION
AND MOTIONS IN
LIMINE
Deirdre Elise Evavold,

TO: THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANT APPEARING PRO SE, 3015 30TH ST CT S, ST.
CLOUD, 56301.

PLEASE TAKE N()TICE that on the 26fll day of September, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., or as

soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, at the Dakota County Judicial Center, 1560 Highway

55, Hastings, Minnesota, before the Honorable Karen Asphaug, Judge of District Court, the State

of Minnesota will request an order concerning the following motions in limine.

Based upon all the files and records in this case, and upon the points and authorities cited

herein, the State hereby moves this Court:

1. For an order prohibiting introduction of evidence of any prior crimes, wrongs, or

acts by any witness called by the State, without a prior, specific ruling allowing introduction of

the evidence.

Authority: Minn. R. Evid. 402, 403, 404, 609, and 611.

2. For an order excluding evidence of the character of any witness called by the

State, other than his or her character for truthfulness.


Authority: Minn. R. Evid. 402, 403, 404, and 608.
3. For an order prohibiting Defendant from trying to cross-examine witnesses

regarding prior unrelated acts or introduce extrinsic evidence of any prior unrelated acts not part

of the present case when attempting to attack witnesses' character for truthfulness.

Authority: Minn. R. Evid. 608

4. For an order prohibiting Defendant from impeaching David Rucki for his past

conviction of dog at large dated 06/09/2011. (See Dakota County Court File No. 19AV-VB-l

l4161). The crime was deemed a petty misdemeanor and is not admissible under Minn. R. Evid.

609(a)(1) because it is not a crime that was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess

of one year. Furthermore, the conviction is not admissible under Minn. R. Evid. 609(a)(2)

because it is not a crime involving dishonesty or false statement.

5. For an order prohibiting Defendant from impeaching David Rucki with a citation

issued to him on 06/20/2011 for allegedly violating an order for protection. The citation was

dismissed. (See Dakota County Court File No. 19AV-CR-11-11288).

6. For an order prohibiting Defendant from impeaching David Rucki for his past

conviction of violation of an order for protection dated 11/07/2011. The crime is a misdemeanor

and is not admissible under Minn. R. Evid. 609(a)(1) because it is not a crime that was

punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year. Furthermore. the conviction is not

admissible under Minn. R. Evid. 609(a)(2) because it is not a crime involving dishonesty or false

statement. (See Dakota County Court File No. 19AV-CR-11-14682).

7. For an order prohibiting Defendant from impeaching David Rucki with a citation

issued to him on 07/17/2011 for allegedly violating an order for protection. The citation was

dismissed. (See Dakota County Court File No. 19AV-CR-11-14179).


8. For an order prohibiting Defendant from impeaching David Rucki With a citaticn

ssued to him on 10/12/2011 for allegedly violating amorder for protection. Mr. Rucki was

acquitted of this offense. (See Dakota County Court File No. 19AV-CR-12-1215).

9. For an order prohibiting Defendant from Impeaching David Rucki for his past

conviction of failure to extinguish a fire dated 12/11/2012. (See Dakota County Court File No.

i 9AV-VB-] 2-20506). The crime was deemed a petty misdemeanor and is not admissible under

Minn. R. Evid. 609(a)(1) because it is not a crime that was punishable by death or imprisonment

In excess of one year. Furthermore, the conviction is not admissible under Minn. R. Evid.

609(a)(2) because it is not a crime involving dishonesty or false statement.

10. For an order prohibiting Defendant from impeaching David Rucki with a citation

issued to him on 11/30/2012 for allegedly violating an order for protection. Mr. Rucki was

acquitted of this offense. (See Dakota County Court File No. 19AV-CR-12-24812).

11. For an order prohibiting Defendant from impeaching David Rucki for his past

conviction of disorderly conduct dated 12/02/2014. The crime is a misdemeanor and is not

admissible under Minn. R. Evid. 609(a)(1) because it is not a crime that was punishable by

death or imprisonment in excess of one year. Furthermore, the conviction is not admissible

under Minn. R. Evid. 609(a)(2) because it is not a crime involving dishonesty or false statement.

(See Dakota County Court File No. 19AV-CR-14-8958).

12. For an order prohibiting Defendant from introducing any evidence related to a

harassment restraining order petition filed by Sandra Grazzini-Rucki on her own behalf and

against David Rucki on August 1, 2013, contained in Scott County Court File No. 70-CV-

1315408, including any mention that the petition was filed and any of the underlying facts or

circumstances relied upon in support of the petition. An order denying the petition was filed or:

7
September 16, 2013.

13. For an order prohibiting Defendant from introducing any evidence related to an

order for protection petition filed by Sandra Grazzini-Rucki on her own behalf and against

David Rucki on July 2, 2012, contained in Dakota County Court File No. 19AV-FA-12-1818,

including any mention that the petition was filed and any of the underlying facts and

circumstances relied upon in support of the petition. An order dismissing the petition was filed

on July 20, 2012.

14. For an order prohibiting Defendant from introducing any evidence related to an order

for protection petition filed by Sandra Grazzini-Rucki on behalf of her minor children against

David Rucki on June 24, 2011, contained in Dakota County Court File No. 19AV-FA-111940,

including any mention that the petition was filed and any of the underlying facts and

circumstances relied upon in support of the petition. An order dismissing the petition was filed

on June 30, 2011.

15. For an order prohibiting Defendant from introducing any evidence related to an

order for protection petition filed by Sandra Grazzini-Rucki on her crvvn behalf and against

David Rucki on June 6, 2011, contained in Dakota County Court File No. 19AV-FA-11-1760,

including any mention that the petition was filed and an order was issued; and any of the

underlying facts and circumstances relied upon in support of the petition. The parties, through

their respective dissolution attorneys, agreed that this order for protection would be issued

without an admission to any of the allegations set forth in the petition and that no finding of

domestic assault was made. Judge Knutson dismissed the order for protection on January 27,

2012.

16. For an order prohibiting Defendant from introducing any evidence related to a

harassment restraining order obtained by Randy Martin against David Rucki filed on September
8, 2009, contained in Dakota County Coult File No. 19AV-CV-09-3394, including any mention

that the petition was filed and order entered; and any of the underlying facts and circumstances

relied upon in support of the petition. Randy Martin and David Rucki were neighbors at the time

of the entry of this harassment restraining order and the order expired effective September 8,

2011.

17. For an order prohibiting Defendant from introducing any evidence related to a

harassment restraining order petition filed by, Christopher Bye on behalf of himself and his wife

Christine Bye against David Rucki on August 21, 2008, contained in Dakota County Court File

No. 19AV-CV-08-2094, including any mention that the petition was filed and any of the

underlying facts and circumstances relied upon in support of the petition. An order dismissing

the petition was filed on September 3, 2008.

18. For an order prohibiting Defendant from introducing any specific acts of domestic

assault allegedly committed against Sandra Grazzini-Rucki by David Rucki and/or any other

assaults allegedly committed by David Rucki against any other person(s). David Rucki has never

been convicted for assaulting Sandra Grazzini-Rucki or any other person. Accordingly, the

evidence is not admissible under Minn. R. Evid. 609.

19. For an order prohibiting Defendant from introducing any opinion or reputation

evidence concerning David Rucki based on any alleged assaultive behavior against Sandra

Grazzini-Rucki or any other person(s).

Rule 404(a)(3) provides:

Evidence of a person's character or a trait of character is not


admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity
therewith on a particular occasion, except:
(3) Character ofwitness. Evidence of Che character of a witness as provided
in rules 607, 608, and 609.

9
Minn. R. Evid. 404(a)(3). Rule 608(a) addresses the Rule 404(a)(3) exception and provides in

pertinent part:

The credibility of a witness may be attacked or supported by


evidence in the form of opinion or reputation, but subject to these
limitations: (1) the evidence may refer only to character for
truthfulness or untruthfulness, and (2) evidence of truthful
character is admissibie only after the character of the witness for
truthfulness has been attack.ed. by opinion or reputation evidence
other otherwise.

Minn. R. Evid. 608(a). Even if true, testimony regarding the fact that a witness engaged in

assaultive behavior does not meet the requirements of Rule 608(a) because any such opinion or

reputation does not refer to the witness's character for truthfulness or untruthfulness.

Dated: September 22, 2016


JAMES C. BACKSTROM
DAKOTA COUNTY ATTORNEY

By: /s/Kathryn M. Keena


Kathryn M. Keena
Assistant County Attorney
Att. Reg. No. 20092x 1560 Highway 55
Hastings, MN 55033
T
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
:

(
6
5
1
)

4
3
8
-
4