Preview:

State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Ronald E. Cram, Appellant. CX-02-1178 and A05-1379, Supreme Court, August 3, 2006.

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT CX-02-1178 and A05-1379

Ramsey County Gildea, J.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Filed: August 3, 2006 Office of Appellate Courts Ronald E. Cram, Appellant. SYLLABUS 1. 2. Any evidentiary errors were harmless. Defendant's trial counsel was not constitutionally ineffective in challenging a restitution award

when defendant provided no basis to contest the award. 3. The postconviction court did not abuse its discretion in denying both defendant's petition for

postconviction relief and his motion for an evidentiary hearing when the record conclusively showed that defendant's trial counsel's representation fell within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance and was not constitutionally ineffective. Affirmed. Heard, considered, and decided by the court en banc.

OPINION GILDEA, Justice.

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/opc021178-0803.htm[4/16/2013 10:14:00 PM]

State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Ronald E. Cram, Appellant. CX-02-1178 and A05-1379, Supreme Court, August 3, 2006.

After a bench trial, Ronald Cram was found guilty of the first-degree murder of his wife, Colleen Cram, while committing domestic abuse. Cram was also found guilty of second-degree intentional murder, but not guilty of first-degree premeditated murder. The district court convicted Cram and sentenced him to life in prison. After Cram appealed his conviction to this court, we granted Cram's motion to stay the appeal during the pendency of postconviction proceedings. On May 13, 2005, the district court denied Cram's petition for postconviction relief. Cram then appealed the denial of postconviction relief to this court. We consolidated the direct appeal and the postconviction appeal. We now affirm Cram's conviction and the denial of postconviction relief. Early in the morning on December 5, 2001, St. Paul police and paramedics responded to Cram's 911 call from his home, arriving within five minutes of the call. Cram told the 911 operator that he was arguing with his wife and then she stopped breathing. The paramedics found Colleen Cram on the floor unconscious, ashen, and with marks on her body. She was not breathing, had no heartbeat, and had multiple bruises from the tips of her fingers to her head, back, abdomen, legs, and feet. Cram, who was agitated, very wet with perspiration, and pacing, told a member of the Rescue Squad something like "I did it this time." Asked by a paramedic how his wife got the marks on her body, Cram said, "I beat her up, I hit her." When the police arrived, Cram told Officer Matthew Arntzen, "She has been f***ing with my mind for years and now I have hurt her." Cram told Arntzen that he had been married to the victim for 26 years. When Arntzen asked what happened, Cram said that "he had been arguing with his wife all night." Cram asked Arntzen, "Be straight with me, Officer, I am going away for a long time, aren't I?" Cram then said, "I really hurt her this time." Following Cram's arrest, St. Paul Police Sergeant Investigator Bruce Wynkoop interviewed him at police headquarters. Audiotapes and a transcription of the interview were entered into evidence at trial. Wynkoop told Cram that Colleen Cram had died and showed Cram pictures of her taken at the hospital after her death. Cram told Wynkoop that they started fighting at about "6:00 o'clock last night." Cram said that his wife had asked Cram to hit her and he said, "It took her twelve f***in' hours last night before I hit her." Shortly afterward, Cram said, "it took her twelve hours to get me mad, damn mad." Cram said that he did not hit his wife until about 5 a.m. that morning, when he took a stick and "hit her in the butt ten, fifteen times." Cram said, "She told me to hit her with it and she'll answer." In Cram's words, "Finally, I got to where I swatted the shit out of her

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/opc021178-0803.htm[4/16/2013 10:14:00 PM]

State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Ronald E. Cram, Appellant. CX-02-1178 and A05-1379, Supreme Court, August 3, 2006.

with [the stick] a couple of times." When asked why he hit his wife with the stick, Cram said, "Cause she demand I did it" and "She told me she'd answer me." When Wynkoop asked if he felt "bad about what happened," Cram replied, "I'm not crazy." Cram then said, "I do know it was a bad f***in' thing when somebody dies" and "I'm not going to act like I'm nuts and not know the difference." When asked, "Why do you say `most likely I did [hit her with my hands],'" Cram replied, "Cause I have before." Upon being confronted with evidence, Cram also admitted that he hit his wife with an electrical cord on the morning of the murder. According to Cram, his wife went and got [the cord] for me after the stick was broke. * * * Not only did I hit her with the damn electrical cord, * * * when she was telling me that she's not right and, and falling down, I hit her with it again, telling her it's bulls**t, quit your f***in' lying. * * * I hit her with the [doubled up] cord. Probably ten times telling her to get up. Finally, Cram admitted that he hit his wife "[e]verywhere," using an open hand and his fists, and that he had "hit her in the past." Asked if he remembered hitting his wife with his hands more than ten times on the morning of the murder, Cram replied, "Yeah." Wynkoop then asked Cram, "When you were hitting her in the front of the body, ah, that wasn't cause she was demanding that you hit her or punish her, am I right there?" Cram replied, "No she wasn't. No, that was, just, that was just being in my face over and over and over and over again." Cram was subsequently indicted, and he waived his right to a jury trial. The case was tried to the court. At trial, the state called Dr. Michael McGee, the Ramsey County Medical Examiner, to testify regarding the cause of death of Colleen Cram. Dr. McGee testified that he performed the autopsy and that the victim had soft tissue injuries on virtually every part of her body. The injuries were too numerous to count. She had oval bruising on both shoulders and left arm, small focal bruises on the left breast, scattered bruises on the knees, shins and thighs, loop-shaped injuries (consistent with an electrical cord) on the lower abdomen and thigh, and several injuries consistent with being hit by a tire iron that was found under the cushions of a sofa at the scene. Internally, Colleen Cram had rib fractures, bruising on both lungs, deep soft tissue injury in her back and buttocks to the point of liquefying the fatty tissue, and severe internal trauma with extensive lacerations in the abdominal cavity. She had a fresh fracture to her left arm's ulna that Dr. McGee attributed to a blow she received while attempting to defend herself from a tire iron, and another defensive injury in her palm consistent with a tire iron blow. Finally, the victim also had a healing fracture to the left leg below the knee from an injury that occurred weeks to months earlier.

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/opc021178-0803.htm[4/16/2013 10:14:00 PM]

State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Ronald E. Cram, Appellant. CX-02-1178 and A05-1379, Supreme Court, August 3, 2006.

Dr. McGee testified that the internal injuries suffered by Colleen Cram, deep within the body, are most commonly seen in motor vehicle accidents where the victim was not restrained. Dr. McGee testified that the internal injuries were also consistent with a significant force such as kicking or stomping. Dr. McGee's opinion was that the cause of Colleen Cram's death was "multiple traumatic injuries due to an assault" that led to her internally bleeding to death. Dr. McGee believed that "the injuries would take a substantial amount of time to deliver" and that it would have taken a minimum of one hour to inflict such injuries. With regard to the past pattern of domestic abuse, an element of first-degree domestic abuse murder, the state called 16 witnesses. These witnesses testified that they had previously seen Colleen Cram, over a period spanning nearly her entire marriage, exhibit signs that she had been a victim of domestic abuse at the hands of Cram. The witnesses included Colleen's mother, cousin, brother (T.C.), coworkers at four of her places of employment, an ophthalmologist, two neighbors, and two police officers. One of Colleen's work managers, her mother, and her cousin, among others, testified that Colleen had told them that Cram hit her. An officer testified that in March 2001, after Colleen's coworkers alerted police to potential abuse, Cram told police that he had hit his wife. Finally, a neighbor testified that less than a month before the murder, she heard Cram, as he came out of his house, "loudly and very angrily" say "`This has been happening for over two years, I should just kill you and collect the insurance money.'" Cram testified in his defense at trial. He stated that he and his wife had three arguments between 6 p.m. on December 4 and 6 a.m. on December 5, 2001. According to Cram, the first argument was verbal. During the second argument, his wife started "hollering" and hitting Cram, and Cram believed that he hit her back. Cram testified that during the third argument, his wife "would come and hit me with things that I would take away from her." He said that his wife first hit him with a tire iron in the head, and he took it away from her and hit her "once or twice" on the bottom with it. He stated that he hit his wife with the tire iron because he "believed that would calm her down." He testified that he "must have snapped" and "must have been in a rage," and that this third argument was different because "it seemed like there was just no end to the aggravating things she would say to me." After five days of testimony, the trial concluded, and the court took the matter under advisement. The court subsequently issued written findings of fact. The court found Cram not guilty of premeditated first-degree murder, guilty of first-degree domestic abuse murder, and guilty of second-degree intentional murder. Cram was sentenced to life in prison. This consolidated appeal followed.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/opc021178-0803.htm[4/16/2013 10:14:00 PM]

State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Ronald E. Cram, Appellant. CX-02-1178 and A05-1379, Supreme Court, August 3, 2006.

Cram raises three issues. First, Cram claims that he was denied his right to present a complete defense because of three separate erroneous evidentiary rulings. Second, Cram claims that his trial counsel was

ineffective in failing to challenge the restitution award. Third, Cram argues that the postconviction court abused its discretion in denying, without an evidentiary hearing, his petition for postconviction relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We turn to an analysis of these issues. I. Cram argues that his right to present a complete defense was violated when the district court restricted his cross-examination of two state witnesses, and when the court granted the state's motion to preclude Cram from calling a priest, with whom Cram and his wife had met, to testify as a witness. We accord deference "to the trial court's exercise of discretion in evidentiary matters and will not lightly overturn a trial court's evidentiary ruling." State v. Kelly, 435 N.W.2d 807, 813 (Minn. 1989). Absent a clear abuse of discretion, an evidentiary ruling will not be reversed. State v. Grayson, 546 N.W.2d 731, 736 (Minn. 1996). "If exclusion of the evidence did violate defendant's constitutional right to present a defense, the decision will not be reversed if it is found to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." Kelly, 435 N.W.2d at 813. Any error in the exclusion of evidence is harmless "`if the verdict actually rendered was surely unattributable to the error.'" State v. Juarez, 572 N.W.2d 286, 292 (Minn. 1997) (quoting State v. Jones, 556 N.W.2d 903, 910 (Minn. 1996)). [1]

Cross-Examination of Two State Witnesses. Cram claims the district court erred when it did not allow Cram to cross-examine Colleen Cram's brother, T.C., about the brother's alleged abuse of his sister. Cram also claims that the district court erred when it did not allow Cram to cross-examine his wife's former coworker, K.W., about K.W.'s alleged sexual advances toward Cram and his wife. The state called T.C. and K.W., and both testified that Colleen Cram told them her husband had been abusing her. The state offered this evidence in connection with the element of domestic abuse murder requiring a past pattern of abuse. Cram argues that preventing the cross-examination of these witnesses violated his constitutional right to confront the witnesses to show bias and his right to present a full defense. Specifically, Cram argues that the evidence he sought to elicit on cross-examination would have "corroborate[d] Mr. Cram's defense theory that he acted in the heat of passion and was not acting with extreme indifference to human life." We turn first to Cram's argument that the cross-examination was relevant to show bias. Regarding T.C., we conclude that the district court did not err in precluding the cross-examination of T.C. about his alleged

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/opc021178-0803.htm[4/16/2013 10:14:00 PM]

State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Ronald E. Cram, Appellant. CX-02-1178 and A05-1379, Supreme Court, August 3, 2006.

abuse of the victim. Cram alleged that T.C. abused his sister approximately 35 years before the murder. The district court precluded the cross-examination of T.C. on the basis of spousal privilege. We conclude that the district court erred in precluding this examination on the basis of spousal privilege. [2] But, the testimony Cram

sought to elicit from T.C. was plainly not relevant to the issue of T.C.'s supposed bias. Whether the victim said that her brother touched her inappropriately 35 years before the murder has no bearing on T.C.'s credibility, and the evidence was therefore properly excluded as irrelevant. See State v. Lanz-Terry, 535 N.W.2d 635, 640 (Minn. 1995) ("[N]ot everything tends to show bias, and courts may exclude evidence that is only marginally useful for this purpose."). Regarding K.W., Cram argues that K.W. was biased against him because he rebuffed her sexual proposition. Cram contends his and his wife's rejection of K.W. gave K.W. a motive to fabricate her testimony about Cram's past abuse of his wife, and that he should have been allowed to explore this bias on crossexamination. Even assuming arguendothat it was error to limit Cram's cross-examination of K.W. as to bias, we hold that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Assuming Cram had established that K.W.'s bias motivated her to fabricate her testimony about Cram's prior abuse of Colleen Cram, K.W. was only one of sixteen witnesses who testified about Cram's abuse. See Juarez, 572 N.W.2d at 291 (noting that "[t]he overwhelming evidence of guilt is a factor, often a very important one, in determining whether, beyond a reasonable doubt, the error has no impact on the verdict."). Contrary to Cram's assertion at oral argument, K.W.'s testimony was not "critical" or "key" to the state's proof of past pattern. Four other witnesses testified, including a coworker of both K.W. and Colleen Cram, that Colleen Cram had told them that Cram had previously abused her. Two additional witnesses testified to witnessing Cram commit domestic abuse on separate occasions. Nine other witnesses testified to incidents from which a fact finder could reasonably infer that Colleen Cram had been abused by Cram. Finally, Cram himself admitted to police that he beat his wife prior to the night of the murder. We conclude that the district court's finding that Cram committed prior abuse was surely unattributable to K.W.'s testimony. Accordingly, we hold that any error in not allowing Cram to cross-examine K.W. about her alleged bias was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Cram's alternative argument is that the evidence he sought to elicit on cross-examination of T.C. and K.W. was relevant to corroborate his heat of passion defense. Other than the bare assertion, Cram offers no

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/opc021178-0803.htm[4/16/2013 10:14:00 PM]

State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Ronald E. Cram, Appellant. CX-02-1178 and A05-1379, Supreme Court, August 3, 2006.

explanation, and we cannot discern on this record, how testimony from T.C. about T.C.'s alleged abuse of Colleen Cram some 35 years earlier or K.W.'s testimony about a rejected proposition would have bolstered Cram's argument that he acted in the heat of passion on the night he murdered his wife. We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in precluding this cross-examination. Priest as Defense Witness. Cram next argues that the district court erred when it prevented Cram from calling as a defense witness a priest who had once met with Cram and his wife for counseling. Cram alleges that Colleen told the priest that a coworker of Colleen's "had made a lesbian advance towards her." The district court granted the state's motion that the priest be precluded from testifying on the basis of the priest-penitent privilege under Minn. Stat.

Download opc021178-0803.pdf

Minnesota Law