Felony firearm charges dismissed
Case
State v. Willis
62-CR-24-2985
Ramsey County District Court
2nd Judicial District
DNA evidence could not establish possession. Both felony counts were dismissed — and the case never reached a jury.
The government charged the client with two felony counts of prohibited possession of a firearm and ammunition — each carrying a potential 15-year sentence — after officers found a handgun in a red bag inside a bedroom the client had been standing near.
The prosecution’s key evidence: a DNA mixture on the gun’s grip that the BCA said was more than 100 billion times more likely to include the client than not.
The legal approach
Thomas filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the evidence was legally insufficient to require the client to stand trial. The defense did not just argue the law — it used the officers’ own reports and narratives to dismantle the complaint’s account of the facts.
The complaint described the client removing a white latex glove as he exited the bedroom, framing it as suspicious conduct. Thomas drew on the officers’ own written narratives to provide a different account: the client was immediately compliant, sat down when told, and consistently maintained that he wore gloves because his hands were severely chapped — a statement the officers recorded themselves.
The complaint characterized the client as having exited “a room” where the firearm was found; Thomas’s reading of the individual officer narratives showed the client had exited a closet area, while the co-occupant — whose mail, personal belongings, and warrants all connected him to the space — was separately positioned in the bedroom itself.
Thomas also drew on the officers’ own reports to highlight what the investigation failed to do. Officers spoke with a third man who was seen lingering outside the apartment during the arrest. That man confirmed he knew the co-occupant and had spent time with him at the address. The officers recorded this — and then never asked him to provide a DNA sample. His DNA was never tested against the firearm, leaving a significant gap in the government’s chain of evidence that Thomas placed directly before the court.
The CAD dispatch records, also cited in the motion, showed the original call described the complainant as a property management company on scene — not a report of criminal activity involving the client.
The motion also turned the DNA evidence against the prosecution using the BCA’s own report. The complaint highlighted that the client’s DNA was a possible contributor to the mixture on the gun’s grip. Thomas cited the same report to surface what the prosecution omitted:
The mixture came from at least four individuals
The primary contributor was female
The client’s contribution was approximately 128 picograms — 128 trillionths of a gram
Another contributor had deposited significantly more DNA than the client
A fifth person’s DNA was identified through the state’s own convicted offender database — a woman with no connection to the scene
The co-occupant, despite being in the same room, was fully excluded as a contributor
Thomas argued that DNA presence alone cannot prove knowing possession — that the law requires proof the defendant was consciously exercising dominion and control over the weapon on the date charged, not merely that their DNA may have touched it at some unknown point in time. He cited State v. Smith, State v. Harris, and State v. Florine to establish that mere proximity to a firearm — even in the same room — does not constitute constructive possession when others had equal or greater access and a reasonable alternative explanation exists.
The result
The District Court agreed.
The court found that the circumstances proved — even viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution — were consistent with a reasonable inference that the client did not know the firearm was in the red bag. Without that knowledge, there could be no possession.
Both felony counts were dismissed.
Disclaimer
This case has been anonymized to protect client confidentiality. Past results do not guarantee or predict future outcomes. Every case is different, and the result in any particular matter depends on its specific facts, the applicable law, and the circumstances of each client.
