State of Minnesota, Appellant, vs. Billy Lee Croon, Respondent.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2006). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A08-0249 State of Minnesota, Appellant, vs. Billy Lee Croon, Respondent. Filed September 2, 2008 Reversed Toussaint, Chief Judge Ramsey County District Court File No. K0-07-4492 Lori Swanson, Attorney General, 1800 Bremer Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-2134; and Susan Gaertner, Ramsey County Attorney, Steven R. Pfaffe, Assistant County Attorney, 50 Kellogg Boulevard West, Suite 315, St. Paul, MN 55102 (for appellant) Mary M. McMahon, Special Assistant State Public Defender, McMahon & Associates Criminal Defense, Ltd., 670 Commerce Drive, Suite 110, Woodbury, MN 55125-9210 (for respondent) Considered and decided by Johnson, Presiding Judge; Toussaint, Chief Judge; and Halbrooks, Judge. UNPUBLISHED OPINION TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge Appellant State of Minnesota challenges the district court s dismissal of the felony domestic-assault charge brought against respondent Billy Lee Croon. Because a conviction of a qualified domestic violence-related offense as defined by Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 16 (2006), need not have a domestic-violence nexus to be used to enhance a misdemeanor domestic assault to a felony under Minn. Stat. § 609.2242, subd. 4 (2006), we reverse. DECISION On December 28, 2007, respondent assaulted his live-in girlfriend in Ramsey County. Minn. Stat. § 609.2242, subd. 4, enhances a misdemeanor domestic assault to a felony if it is committed within ten years of the first of two or more previous qualified domestic violence-related offense convictions. Respondent was charged with felony domestic assault rather than misdemeanor domestic assault because he had prior convictions of misdemeanor battery in 2000, when the victim was his former girlfriend, and of felony terroristic threats in 2001, when the victims were an elderly couple with whom he had no relationship. The district court granted respondent s motion to dismiss the charge because the terroristic-threat conviction lacked a domestic-violence nexus. The state challenges that dismissal. When the state appeals from a pretrial order dismissing a criminal charge, this court will reverse only if the state clearly and unequivocally demonstrates that the district court erred and that the error, unless reversed, will have a critical impact on the outcome 2 of the prosecution. State v. Lopez, 631 N.W.2d 810, 813 (Minn. App. 2001), review denied (Minn. Sept. 25, 2001). It is undisputed that the district court s dismissal of the complaint had a critical impact on the outcome of the prosecution. Respondent argues that his 2001 terroristic-threat conviction is not a qualified domestic violence-related offense because it lacked a domestic-violence nexus. But Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 16, defines qualified domestic violence-related offense to include offenses that have no domestic-violence nexus. One such offense is violations of [Minn. Stat. §] 609.713 [2006] (terroristic threats). Others are violations of Minn. Stat. §§ 609.221, 609.222, 609.223, 609.2231, 609.224 (2006) (respectively, first-, second-, third-, fourth-, and fifth-degree assault); Minn. Stat. §§ 609.342, 609.343, 609.344, 609.345 (2006) (respectively, first-, second-, third-, and fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct); Minn. Stat. § 609.377 (2006) (malicious punishment of child); Minn. Stat. § 609.748, subd. 6 (2006) (violation of harassment restraining order); Minn. Stat. § 609.749 (2006) (harassment/stalking); and Minn. Stat. § 609.78, subd. 2 (2006) (interference with emergency call). See also State v. Moen, 752 N.W.2d 532, 535 (Minn. App. 2008) (concluding that any offense enumerated in section 609.02, subdivision 16, is a qualified domestic-violence related offense). Respondent s argument is without merit. Reversed. 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.