This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
                                     A23-0362

                                   State of Minnesota,
                                      Respondent,

                                            vs.

                                Reginald Scott Hubbard,
                                      Appellant.

                                Filed February 26, 2024
                                       Affirmed
                                Smith, Tracy M., Judge

                         Yellow Medicine County District Court
                                File No. 87-CR-22-435

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Lydia Villalva Lijó, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul,
Minnesota; and

Mark Gruenes, Yellow Medicine County Attorney, Granite Falls, Minnesota (for
respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Leah C. Graf, Assistant Public
Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

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

and Gaïtas, Judge.

                          NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION

SMITH, TRACY M., Judge

       In this appeal from a final judgment of conviction following a jury trial, appellant

Reginald Scott Hubbard argues that his conviction for felony fifth-degree assault must be
reversed and the case remanded for a new trial because the district court (1) erred by

denying his request for a self-defense jury instruction and (2) violated his right to testify

and present a complete defense by prohibiting him from explaining his mental state at the

time of the offense. In his pro se supplemental brief, Hubbard also asserts ineffective

assistance of counsel and mistreatment at the county jail. We conclude that Hubbard failed

to meet his burden of production to warrant a self-defense instruction, that any error in

excluding his testimony about his mental state was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt,

and that the arguments in Hubbard’s supplemental brief fail because they are unsupported

by legal authority and citation to the record. We therefore affirm.

                                          FACTS

       The following facts are taken from the evidence presented at trial.

The Assault

       On the morning of September 10, 2022, Hubbard and victim K.M. were in custody

at the Yellow Medicine County Jail. Hubbard and K.M., along with a third inmate, were in

the dayroom of their shared jail pod. Three individual cells—the doors of which were

open—adjoined the dayroom. The dayroom was monitored by a camera, but the individual

cells were not.

       Initially, K.M. was sitting alone at a table, flipping through the channels on the

dayroom’s television. Hubbard approached K.M., picked up the television remote control

from the table at which K.M. was sitting, and told K.M. that it was “football day.” K.M.

and Hubbard exchanged words before K.M. suddenly got up, stepped toward Hubbard, and

took the remote control out of Hubbard’s hand. K.M. continued to stand for approximately


                                             2
30 seconds while Hubbard repeatedly asked K.M. to go into an individual cell with him.

As K.M. was standing, he appeared to take a second step toward Hubbard.

      Instead of following Hubbard into an individual cell, K.M. sat down again at the

same table and faced the television. Hubbard remained standing and continued to

repeatedly ask K.M. to go into an individual cell with him. K.M. remained seated and did

not move. Hubbard testified that he did not want to fight K.M.—rather, he was asking K.M.

to go to an individual cell because he wanted to see if K.M. “had something against [him]”

and because he (Hubbard) was “scared” and “[p]aranoid.”

      Hubbard was moving around the dayroom while he talked to K.M. First, he walked

into a cell on the opposite side of the room from K.M. as he asked K.M. to join him.

Hubbard then moved to the cell behind where K.M. was sitting and asked K.M. to join him.

Approximately 20 seconds later, Hubbard came out of that cell and moved back across the

room from K.M. Hubbard continued to ask K.M. to go into a cell with him, and, after

approximately 30 seconds, Hubbard lunged across the room at K.M., who was still sitting

down. Hubbard put his arm around K.M.’s neck from behind and dragged K.M. out of his

chair and into the individual cell behind where K.M. was sitting.

      The time periods between these events were as follows: (1) there was approximately

one minute and 40 seconds between when K.M. took the remote from Hubbard’s hand and

when Hubbard attacked K.M., (2) there was approximately one minute and 30 seconds

between when K.M. took the second step toward Hubbard and when Hubbard attacked

K.M., and (3) there was approximately one minute and seven seconds between when K.M.

sat back down and when Hubbard attacked K.M.


                                            3
       A corrections officer observed the confrontation on camera. The officer entered the

jail pod and, when he looked into one of the individual cells, saw Hubbard on his back with

his arm around K.M.’s neck. K.M. testified that he recalled the officer coming into the cell

but that he “was starting to black out at the time.” K.M. also recalled that he felt like he

was “going to die” and that he felt pain during the incident.

       The officer told Hubbard to let go of K.M., but Hubbard did not immediately do so.

Hubbard told the officer that K.M. had been threatening him. The officer stood Hubbard

up, K.M. was finally released, and the two men were separated.

       Hubbard testified that, leading up to the assault, he felt “overwhelmed” and

“threatened” by K.M. He described K.M. as “pretty tall.” Hubbard explained that he knew

K.M. from being in a different jail pod with him a couple days prior to the assault. He

testified that, on the day before the assault, K.M. asked him if he could use Hubbard’s

phone card. Hubbard testified that he could not let K.M. use his phone card because he was

running low on funds. Hubbard explained that K.M. “couldn’t understand it” and that he

(Hubbard) got “locked down” because K.M. threatened him. Hubbard further testified that

he tried to “neutralize the situation” and show K.M. that there were “no hard feelings” by

sending K.M. cookies.

       After the assault, respondent State of Minnesota charged Hubbard with one count

of felony fifth-degree assault in violation of Minnesota Statutes section 609.224,

subdivision 4(b) (2022). Before trial, Hubbard noticed his intent to rely on self-defense.




                                             4
Hubbard’s Proffered Medical/Mental-Health Testimony

       At trial, Hubbard testified as to his physical and mental condition. He explained that

he is legally blind and that he “get[s] disability” for this condition. He also testified that he

receives disability for “mental reasons.” His trial counsel asked him about the medications

he takes, and the state objected on relevance grounds. Outside of the presence of the jury,

Hubbard’s trial counsel told the district court that Hubbard’s testimony would be that “he’s

more paranoid” “when he’s not on all of his medications” and that the testimony was

relevant to Hubbard’s claim of self-defense. The district court sustained the state’s

objection. Later, Hubbard testified that he was not “tak[ing] . . . medication for paranoid

schizophrenia,” and the district court ordered the jury to disregard “any of the testimony

regarding the medication.” On cross-examination, Hubbard testified that he invited K.M.

into an individual cell because he was “scared” and “[p]aranoid.”

Self-Defense Instruction

       Before closing arguments, Hubbard requested that the jury be instructed on self-

defense, asserting that he had satisfied his burden of production to support the instruction.

After hearing argument from both parties, the district court denied Hubbard’s request. The

district court first explained its decision by stating:

               [Hubbard] has not met [the] burden. Specifically, the video
               shows that [Hubbard] was the aggressor, that [K.M.] did not
               show any—much signs at all of aggression. There was not
               much testimony that showed that [Hubbard] had an actual
               honest belief of imminent danger of death or bodily—great
               bodily harm.

After a break, the district court came back and clarified its decision by stating:



                                                5
              [Hubbard] has not met [his] burden of reasonable evidence to
              support [his] self-defense claim. The evidence shows that
              [Hubbard] was the aggressor and [Hubbard] initiated
              interaction with [K.M.] The video showed that [K.M.] was just
              sitting at the table in his chair and that [Hubbard] testified that
              [Hubbard] was trying to get [K.M.] to come back to his cell
              where there [were] no video cameras to discuss their
              disagreement. The video showed that [Hubbard] came
              up . . . behind [K.M.] and put his arm around [K.M.’s] neck
              and dragged him to the cell. [Hubbard] testified he was afraid
              of [K.M.] but did not give any reasonable reason to support the
              belief. Therefore, the testimony offered into evidence to
              support a self-defense claim is contradictory to the jail video
              and absolutely and clearly insufficient for any rational jury to
              come to the conclusion that justified the use of force under the
              circumstances.

       The jury found Hubbard guilty of felony fifth-degree assault. The district court

entered the conviction and sentenced Hubbard to 21 months in prison, stayed execution of

the sentence, and placed him on probation for five years.

       Hubbard appeals.

                                         DECISION

I.     The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Hubbard’s
       request for a self-defense jury instruction.

       Appellate courts review a district court’s determination of whether a jury instruction

should be given for an abuse of discretion. State v. Johnson, 

 (Minn.

2006). A district court abuses its discretion by refusing to give an instruction on a

defendant’s theory of the case when the evidence provides a rational basis to support the

defendant’s theory. 

 If, however, the defense was not prejudiced by the district court’s

refusal to give a specific instruction, “there is no reversible error.” 

 (quotation omitted).

Appellate courts view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party requesting the


                                               6
instruction. State v. Jama, 

 (Minn. App. 2018), aff’d, 

 (Minn. 2019).

       “The defendant has the burden of going forward with evidence to support a claim

of self-defense.” Johnson, 

 (quotation omitted). Self-defense consists of

four elements: “(1) an absence of aggression or provocation; (2) an actual and honest belief

that imminent . . . bodily harm would result; (3) a reasonable basis existed for this belief;

and (4) an absence of reasonable means to retreat or otherwise avoid the physical

conflict.” 1 State v. Soukup, 

 (Minn. App. 2003) (holding that the same

“principles of self-defense in homicide cases apply to assault cases as well”), rev. denied

(Minn. Apr. 29, 2003). “The defense is sufficiently raised when a defendant creates a

reasonable doubt as to whether the level of force used was justified.” 

. Once the

defense has met its burden of production, “the state has the burden of disproving one or

more of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt.” Johnson, 

(quotation omitted).

       In its first explanation for denying a self-defense instruction, the district court found

that Hubbard had not met his burden of production on the first element of self-defense

because “the video show[ed] that [Hubbard] was the aggressor” and that “[K.M.] did not




1
  Regarding the second element, Hubbard argues in his principal brief that this element
requires not a fear of bodily harm but merely fear of an offense against the person, relying
on this court’s decision in State v. Lampkin, 

 (Minn. App. 2022). But the
supreme court has since reversed our holding in Lampkin and clarified that the correct
standard is fear of imminent bodily harm. State v. Lampkin, 

, 289 (Minn.
2023).

                                               7
show . . . much signs at all of aggression.” Later, the district court clarified its decision by

stating:

              The evidence shows that [Hubbard] was the aggressor and [he]
              initiated interaction with [K.M.] The video showed that [K.M.]
              was just sitting at the table in his chair and that [Hubbard]
              testified that [he] was trying to get [K.M.] to come back to his
              cell where there [were] no video cameras to discuss their
              disagreement. The video showed that [Hubbard] came up
              . . . behind [K.M.] and put his arm around [K.M.’s] neck and
              dragged him to the cell.

       Hubbard argues that he met his burden of production on this element because the

evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to Hubbard, showed that (1) K.M.

threatened Hubbard twice the previous day, (2) K.M. was the first to engage physically

with Hubbard by “ripping” the remote from Hubbard’s hand, (3) K.M. made a move toward

Hubbard before Hubbard asked K.M. to go in a cell with him and before K.M. sat back

down, and (4) Hubbard did not want to fight K.M. when he asked K.M. to go into a cell.

       But, even accepting those circumstances as true, they provide no rational basis to

find K.M., and not Hubbard, the aggressor in the context of the recorded encounter. The

undisputed evidence shows that K.M. was sitting down watching television, not engaging

with Hubbard, until Hubbard came and took the remote from K.M. K.M. grabbed the

remote back from Hubbard’s hand and sat down again at his table for over a minute,

unmoving, while Hubbard repeatedly asked K.M. to go into an individual cell with him.

Hubbard then suddenly crossed the room, grabbed K.M. by the neck, and dragged K.M.

into a cell. Even if K.M. became aggressive when retrieving the remote, K.M. retreated




                                               8
from the dispute by sitting down and remaining seated while Hubbard continuously

attempted to provoke him into a cell.

       Johnson, the only precedential case that Hubbard cites, does not support his

argument that he met his burden of production. 2 In Johnson, the supreme court concluded

that a self-defense instruction was warranted when there was evidence that the alleged

victim pushed, repeatedly hit, kicked, and then shot at the appellant. 

.

This case is factually dissimilar to Johnson. Here, there was a period of over one minute

after K.M. made any aggressive motion toward Hubbard, during which K.M. sat at a table,

unmoving, before Hubbard “defended himself” by putting K.M. in a chokehold. There was

no similar cooling-off period in Johnson. See 

. Thus, Johnson does not compel

reversal here.

       Because Hubbard did not meet his burden of producing evidence on the absence-of-

aggression element, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by

refusing to instruct the jury on self-defense.

II.    The district court did not commit reversible error when it restricted testimony
       related to Hubbard’s mental state.

       Hubbard also argues that the district court violated his right to testify and present a

complete defense by restricting his testimony regarding his mental state at the time of the

incident.



2
  Hubbard also cites a nonprecedential case, Beale v. State, No. A22-0343, 

, at *3 (Minn. App. Dec. 5, 2022), in support of his argument. However,
“[n]onprecedential opinions . . . are not binding authority except as law of the case, res
judicata or collateral estoppel.” Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

                                                 9
       “Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court, and

[appellate courts] will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”

State v. Ali, 

 (Minn. 2014). “[Appellate courts] review a district

court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion, even when, as here, the defendant claims

that the exclusion of evidence deprived him of his constitutional right to a meaningful

opportunity to present a complete defense.” State v. Zumberge, 

(Minn. 2017). The district court “abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an

erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” Riley v. State, 

 (Minn. 2011).

       “Even if . . . a district court abused its discretion, [appellate courts] reverse only if

the exclusion of evidence was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Zumberge, 

. “An error in excluding [defense] evidence is harmless only if the reviewing

court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that if the evidence had been admitted and the

damaging potential of the evidence fully realized, a reasonable jury would have reached

the same verdict.” State v. Olsen, 

 (Minn. App. 2012) (quotation

omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Feb. 27, 2013).

       Hubbard argues that the district court abused its discretion by excluding his

testimony about his mental-health medications and the effect of not taking his medications

because his testimony was relevant for two reasons: first, the evidence supported his prima

facie case for self-defense; and, second, Hubbard had a due-process right to explain the

reason for his conduct even if motive was not a valid defense. But we need not determine

whether the exclusion of Hubbard’s testimony about his medications was error under either


                                              10
theory if we conclude that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v.

Courtney, 

 (Minn. 2005) (explaining that the court need not address

whether the admission of evidence violated the appellant’s confrontation rights when the

court was satisfied that the admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt). We

therefore turn to the question of the prejudicial effect of any error.

         First, Hubbard argues that excluding the evidence impaired his ability to establish a

prima facie case of self-defense because it would have tended to prove that he had an actual

and honest belief that an offense against his person was imminent—the second element of

self-defense. But the district court did not decline to instruct the jury on self-defense

because Hubbard failed to meet his burden of production on the second element; rather, the

district court denied the instruction because Hubbard failed to meet his burden of

production on other elements of self-defense, including that Hubbard was not the

aggressor. The excluded testimony would have had no bearing on the other elements of

self-defense. Because the district court based its decision to deny Hubbard’s request for a

self-defense jury instruction on grounds that were not affected by the omission of the

testimony at issue, any error in excluding the testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable

doubt.

         Second, Hubbard argues that excluding the testimony impaired his ability to give

his version of events. Hubbard testified about what transpired between K.M. and him and

why he grabbed K.M. He explained that he began feeling threatened by K.M. the day

before. Then, during his encounter in the dayroom, he felt threatened by K.M. due to

K.M.’s physical size and K.M. moving toward him. Hubbard stated that he invited K.M.


                                              11
back to the individual cell not to fight but to “see if [K.M.] had something on his chest, like

. . . something against [him].” Hubbard also explained that he invited K.M. into the

individual cell because he was “scared” and “[p]aranoid.” And he testified that he receives

disability benefits for “mental reasons.” Considering Hubbard’s testimony as a whole, we

conclude that, even if the district court had permitted Hubbard to also testify about his

medications as part of his version of events, there is no reasonable doubt that the jury still

would have reached the same verdict.

III.   Hubbard is not entitled to relief based on his claims of ineffective assistance of
       counsel and mistreatment at the jail.

       In his pro se supplemental brief, Hubbard alleges several instances of ineffective

assistance of counsel, including that his attorney (1) did not let him properly view a “disk”

until the day the jury viewed it, (2) did not have a doctor testify regarding Hubbard’s

medications, and (3) “never told [him] about a plea deal.”

       Criminal defendants have a right to effective assistance of counsel. U.S. Const.

amend. VI; Minn. Const. art. I, § 6; State v. Hokanson, 

 (Minn. 2012).

Appellate courts apply the two-prong Strickland test to evaluate an appellant’s ineffective-

assistance-of-counsel claim. State v. King, 

, 417 (Minn. 2023); see

Strickland v. Washington, 

 (1984). Under the Strickland test, the

appellant has the burden of showing (1) that their “attorney’s representation fell below an

objective standard of reasonableness” and (2) that “there is a reasonable probability that,

but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been

different.” King, 990 N.W.2d at 417 (quotations omitted). If one prong is determinative,



                                              12
the reviewing court need not address the other. State v. Rhodes, 

(Minn. 2003). Because ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims involve mixed questions

of law and fact, the standard of review is de novo. See Strickland, 

.

       Appellate courts deem arguments in a pro se supplemental brief forfeited if the brief

“contains no argument or citation to legal authority in support of the allegations” and will

consider those arguments only if “prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” State v.

Taylor, 

 (Minn. 2015). Hubbard does not identify anything in the existing

record to support his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Further, an independent

review of the record does not reveal any support for Hubbard’s claims. We therefore reject

Hubbard’s claims here. But, to the extent that any of the claims may properly be raised in

a petition for postconviction relief, we do not foreclose the claim. See State v. Gustafson,

 (Minn. 2000) (preserving appellant’s right to pursue ineffective-

assistance-of-counsel claim in a petition for postconviction relief when record on appeal is

inadequate to resolve claim).

       Hubbard also alleges mistreatment by the jail staff but does not explain how this

alleged mistreatment entitles him to a new trial. Because Hubbard’s brief provides no

argument to support his claim and prejudicial error is not obvious upon mere inspection,

we decline to address Hubbard’s assertion of mistreatment by jail staff. See Taylor, 

.

       Affirmed.




                                            13