This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
                       Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

                              STATE OF MINNESOTA
                              IN COURT OF APPEALS
                                    A23-1322

                                  State of Minnesota,
                                      Respondent,

                                           vs.

                                Brady James Robinson,
                                      Appellant.

                                  Filed June 24, 2024
                                       Affirmed
                                     Frisch, Judge


                             Olmsted County District Court
                               File No. 55-CR-22-3200

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Mark A. Ostrem, Olmsted County Attorney, James E. Haase, Senior Assistant County
Attorney, Rochester, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Richard Schmitz, Assistant Public
Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

      Considered and decided by Smith, Tracy M., Presiding Judge; Bjorkman, Judge;

and Frisch, Judge.
                          NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION

FRISCH, Judge

       Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in this direct appeal following

convictions of second-degree assault with a dangerous weapon, harassment motivated by

bias, and harassment within ten years of a qualifying offense. The evidence at trial

established that appellant harassed and assaulted a person with a dangerous weapon

because of the person’s national origin, and we therefore affirm.

                                         FACTS

       On May 18, 2022, respondent State of Minnesota charged appellant Brady James

Robinson with second-degree assault with a dangerous weapon and fourth-degree assault

motivated by bias. The state subsequently amended the complaint to add charges of

harassment motivated by bias and harassment within ten years of a qualifying offense. The

case proceeded to trial where the jury heard the following testimony.

       G.M.—a Spanish-speaking person from Mexico—testified that at around 11:00

p.m. on May 16, 2022, he went to his cleaning business located in Rochester to pick up

supplies. As he was opening the front door to the business, he heard someone yelling from

across the street. He continued to open the door, but then he heard the voice get louder

“right behind [his] back.” The person began to yell at G.M., calling him a “f--king

Mexican” and “[s]tupid Mexican,” and accused G.M. of “touching” children. G.M. turned

around and saw that the person yelling was Robinson. G.M. observed that Robinson was

holding a hammer over his shoulder in one hand and a metal bar in the other. Robinson

pointed the bar at G.M. while continuing to insult him. Robinson then told G.M. that he


                                            2
was “going to put that stupid hammer” in G.M.’s head, and Robinson swung the hammer

and hit G.M.’s hand. The hammer would have struck G.M. in the neck had G.M. not moved

backward. G.M. feared that Robinson was going to kill him. G.M. then asked Robinson

to let him get in his truck. Robinson responded, “[G]et out of here you stupid Mexican. If

I see you again, I’m going to shoot you.” G.M. then drove away.

      Robinson also testified. He stated that on the night in question, he noticed that

neighbors seemed concerned that something bad was occurring near the building where the

cleaning business was located. Later, Robinson noticed a man trying to get inside the

building. Robinson believed the building to be abandoned and was concerned that the man

was not supposed to be there. Robinson testified that he spoke to the man with a raised

voice and acknowledged that his demeanor was “probably pretty aggressive.” Robinson

admitted to holding a metal pipe, which he swung near G.M., but he denied holding a

hammer. Robinson also maintained that he did not utter any racial slurs or racially related

terms, and he denied that his conduct was motivated by the fact that G.M. is Mexican.

According to Robinson, he approached G.M. only to protect his neighborhood. Robinson

also testified that he had five prior felony convictions, including two for violating

domestic-assault no-contact orders (DANCOs) in 2017 and 2019.

       The jury also heard testimony from Robinson’s ex-partner. She testified that she is

of Mexican descent and that she had never known Robinson to be racist toward “Mexican,

Hispanic, or Latino people.”

       The jury found Robinson guilty of second-degree assault with a dangerous weapon,

harassment motivated by bias, and harassment within ten years of a qualifying offense.


                                            3
The jury acquitted Robinson of fourth-degree assault motivated by bias. The district court

convicted Robinson of second-degree assault with a dangerous weapon, harassment

motivated by bias, and harassment within ten years of a qualifying offense. It sentenced

him on the second-degree assault conviction only, ordering that Robinson serve 44 months

in prison.

       Robinson appeals.

                                        DECISION

I.     The evidence at trial was sufficient to prove that Robinson committed second-
       degree assault with a dangerous weapon.

       Robinson argues that the state failed to prove that he committed second-degree

assault with a dangerous weapon. An assault is “an act done with intent to cause fear in

another of immediate bodily harm or death” or “the intentional infliction of or the attempt

to inflict bodily harm upon another.” 

, subd. 10 (2020). A dangerous

weapon is “any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily

harm . . . or other device or instrumentality that, in the manner it is used or intended to be

used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm.” 

,

subd. 6 (2020). Robinson disputes that the evidence at trial established that the hammer

and metal bar became dangerous weapons by virtue of their use or intended use.

       In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence in support of a conviction,

we first determine whether the conviction is based on direct evidence or circumstantial

evidence. A conviction may be based on direct evidence, which “is evidence that is based

on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or



                                              4
presumption.” State v. Harris, 

 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted). If

that is the case, then our review is limited to “a painstaking analysis of the record to

determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction,

was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” State v. Horst, 

 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted).          But if a conviction is based on

circumstantial evidence—or “evidence from which the factfinder can infer whether the

facts in dispute existed or did not exist,” Harris, 

 (quotation omitted),

then we apply a two-step analysis, State v. Silvernail, 

 (Minn.

2013). Under this standard, we must first identify the circumstances proved and then

determine “whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent

with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” 

 (quotations omitted).

       Robinson maintains that the state proved his intended use of the hammer and metal

bar through circumstantial evidence. While it is true that intent is “generally proved

circumstantially,” in “rare instance[s]” the state may prove a defendant’s intent through

direct evidence. State v. Jones, 4 N.W.3d 495, 501 (Minn. 2024) (quotation omitted). And

the supreme court recently held that a defendant’s statement that he was “going to beat [the

victim] bloody” while wielding a wooden board over his head was “direct evidence of his

intended use of the board.” Id. at 500-01. The same occurred in this case—the direct

evidence at trial established that Robinson told G.M. that he was “going to put that stupid

hammer” in G.M.’s head while holding the hammer. We therefore apply the direct-

evidence standard.




                                             5
       Here, direct evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that Robinson intended

to use the hammer in a manner “calculated or likely to produce great bodily harm.” 

, subd. 6.     G.M. testified that Robinson, while wielding the hammer,

threatened to use it to strike G.M. in the head. G.M. further testified that Robinson swung

the hammer at him, forcing G.M. to move backward to avoid the blow. And the direct

evidence establishes that when Robinson swung the hammer, it made contact with G.M.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict, we conclude that the

evidence is sufficient for the jury to have concluded that Robinson committed second-

degree assault with a dangerous weapon.

II.    The evidence at trial was sufficient to prove that Robinson committed
       harassment motivated by bias against G.M. based on G.M.’s national origin.

       A person is guilty of felony harassment when they commit harassment within the

meaning of 

, subd. 2 (2020), “because of the victim’s or another’s

actual or perceived race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability as defined in

section 363A.03, age, or national origin.” 

, subd. 3(a)(1) (2020).

Here the state argued that Robinson committed harassment within the meaning of the

statute by “directly or indirectly . . . manifest[ing] a purpose or intent to injure the person,

property, or rights of another by the commission of an unlawful act,” 

,

subd. 2(c)(1), and that Robinson, intending to intimidate G.M., “place[d] [G.M.] in

reasonable fear of substantial bodily harm,” 

 subd. 2(b)(1).




                                               6
      Robinson contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction

because it consists of only G.M.’s testimony, which conflicts with his own. 1 This argument

is unpersuasive. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we are required to

“assume that the jury believed the state’s witnesses” and disbelieved Robinson. State v.

Pilot, 

 (Minn. 1999). We must therefore accept G.M.’s account as

true. And because “a conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single

credible witness,” State v. Hill, 

 (Minn. 1969), G.M.’s testimony is

sufficient evidence of the fact that Robinson made racially charged statements.

       Moreover, our review of the record satisfies us that the state proved each element

supporting Robinson’s harassment-motivated-by-bias conviction beyond a reasonable

doubt. The same direct evidence that establishes Robinson’s guilt of second-degree assault

also establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that Robinson manifested an intent to intimidate

and injure G.M. See 

, subd. 2(c)(1), (b). Robinson alerted G.M. as

to his intent to hit him in the head with a hammer. And Robinson’s statements and actions

caused G.M. to fear that Robinson would kill him. See 

 subd. 2(b)(1).

       The circumstantial evidence also establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that

Robinson’s harassment was because of G.M.’s race or national origin. Because the state

proved Robinson’s motivation for the harassment by circumstantial evidence, we first


1
   Robinson also asserts that G.M.’s testimony recounting Robinson’s race-related
statements is inadmissible hearsay. We disagree. Minnesota Rule of Evidence
801(d)(2)(A) exempts from the hearsay definition statements made by a party-declarant
and used against the party-declarant at trial. Because Robinson uttered these statements
and the statements were introduced as evidence against Robinson at his own trial, the
statements are not hearsay.

                                            7
identify the circumstances proved and then determine whether those circumstances exclude

any rational hypothesis except that of guilt. Silvernail, 

. Here, the

circumstances proved are that Robinson approached G.M. from behind and began accusing

him of “touching” children and calling him a “[s]tupid Mexican” and a “f--king Mexican.”

He then told G.M. “get out of here you stupid Mexican. If I see you again, I’m going to

shoot you.”

          Robinson identifies no reasonable hypothesis of innocence based on these

circumstances, and we can conceive of none. A criminal offense is committed “because

of” another’s race or national origin if there is “a causal connection between the infliction

of injury and the assailant’s perception of the group to which the victim belongs.” See In

re Welfare of S.M.J., 

 (Minn. App. 1996) (considering “because of”

language in the context of an assault motivated by bias under 

,

subd. 4 (1994)). And the use of racially charged language during the commission of an

offense against another is evidence of that causal connection. See 

 (pointing to

several pieces of evidence of a causal connection between an assault and the victim’s race,

including “speech during the assault”).      Robinson’s repeated use of such language

throughout his harassment of G.M. precludes any rational hypothesis that the harassment

was not causally connected to what Robinson perceived to be G.M.’s race or national

origin.




                                             8
III.   The evidence at trial was sufficient to prove that Robinson committed
       harassment within ten years of a qualifying offense.

       Robinson also argues that the evidence is insufficient to establish that he committed

harassment within ten years of a qualifying offense under 

, subd. 4

(2020). To prove Robinson’s guilt, the state was required to prove beyond a reasonable

doubt that Robinson violated a provision of 

, subd. 2, and that he did

so within ten years of a qualifying offense. 

, subd. 4. As we have

already held, the evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that Robinson violated

, subd. 2(c)(1). And Robinson provided direct evidence in the form

of testimony at trial that he had been convicted of two qualifying domestic violence-related

offenses within the last ten years. 

, subd. 16 (2020) (defining qualified

domestic violence-related offense as including violation of a DANCO). We therefore

affirm all three of Robinson’s convictions.

       Affirmed.




                                              9