The public record describes an escalating household conflict but also leaves an unresolved discrepancy in the reported overnight timeline.
MONTICELLO, Minn. — The murder case against Steven Ralph Stahlberg is built publicly around several separate pieces of evidence: calls made by Daniel Lawrence Ferdelman before his death, a neighbor’s surveillance video, a fatal shotgun injury and a firearm recovered after Stahlberg’s arrest more than 150 miles away.
Together, those elements form the outline prosecutors have used to accuse Stahlberg, 48, of killing Ferdelman, 57, on Sept. 3. Reports on a Wright County criminal complaint say Stahlberg faces two counts of second-degree murder. Yet the same public record also contains details that are incomplete or not fully reconciled, including a timing issue between a reported telephone call and surveillance footage showing a pickup leaving the Monticello residence. The case therefore illustrates the difference between a charging narrative, which alleges probable cause, and a final determination of what happened. Stahlberg has not been reported convicted of the charges.
The earliest time specifically described in the complaint reporting is about 12:15 a.m. Ferdelman’s girlfriend was working away from the home she shared with Ferdelman and her brother, Stahlberg. Ferdelman called her and said trouble had developed over the couple’s new cat. According to his account, Stahlberg had taken the animal into his bedroom and barricaded himself there. Ferdelman wanted the cat brought out. Stahlberg eventually emerged, and a physical exchange followed in which Stahlberg allegedly pushed Ferdelman and Ferdelman pushed him back.
Ferdelman told his girlfriend that Stahlberg had been drinking and was behaving belligerently, according to reports describing the complaint. Stahlberg then allegedly took the cat back into his room. The significance of that first call is not that a disagreement over a pet by itself explains the later killing; authorities have not released evidence establishing a broader motive. Instead, the call is part of the prosecution’s chronology showing friction between the two men shortly before Ferdelman’s death. It also gives investigators a reported account from Ferdelman himself, relayed through his girlfriend, about the condition of the household during his final hours.
A second reported call described another escalation. Ferdelman’s girlfriend told investigators he contacted her again and said Stahlberg had entered his bedroom and begun fighting with him. Reports place that conversation between 2 a.m. and 3 a.m. Ferdelman had said that if Stahlberg struck or pushed him again, someone could be hurt. His girlfriend later told investigators she knew her brother was intoxicated and feared another confrontation would end badly. Because she was at work, the information about the fights came through what Ferdelman told her rather than from her personal observation of the encounters.
Surveillance footage adds an independent clock to the case, but one that does not neatly match every reported statement. According to the complaint summaries, a neighboring camera recorded a man getting into a pickup parked at the property and leaving at 1:18 a.m. The truck was consistent with Stahlberg’s Toyota Tundra. If the reported times are accurate, the video departure appears to precede the second telephone call that other accounts place between 2 a.m. and 3 a.m. The sources reviewed do not explain the conflict. It could become clearer through complete phone records, video timestamps or other evidence, but none of those materials has been publicly detailed in the reports reviewed here.
Several hours later, at about 7:27 a.m., Stahlberg’s sister returned from work and called 911. Deputies went to the Highway 25 NE residence and found Ferdelman dead in a bedroom. The Wright County Sheriff’s Office said evidence and information gathered at the scene indicated that Ferdelman had recently been in an altercation with Stahlberg. It later announced that the Midwest Medical Examiner’s Office had ruled Ferdelman’s death a homicide. The sheriff’s public statement did not initially detail the full medical findings that later appeared in reporting based on the criminal complaint.
Those later reports said Ferdelman died from a shotgun wound to the chest. FOX 9 reported that the medical examiner recovered material described as consistent with components of a shotgun round. The finding gave investigators a possible connection to evidence recovered hours later, but it did not by itself identify the person who fired the fatal shot. Establishing criminal responsibility requires more than determining the type of weapon involved, and prosecutors would still have to prove the charged offenses through admissible evidence if the case proceeds to trial.
Investigators also learned that Stahlberg was no longer at the home. His sister told them that, if he had killed Ferdelman, she feared he might be traveling to their father’s residence in Remer to kill him as well. The complaint summaries do not state why she thought their father would be targeted. Authorities nevertheless began a statewide search. The sheriff’s office said agencies including the Cass County Sheriff’s Office and Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension participated. Bring Me The News reported that investigators also used automated license plate readers to trace Stahlberg’s movements.
At about 9:45 a.m., authorities located Stahlberg’s Toyota Tundra in the Remer area and arrested him. Reports place the location more than 150 miles from Monticello and roughly 10 miles from the father’s residence. Police found a shotgun on the front passenger-side floorboard, according to the charging reports. FOX 9 said it had been beneath a windshield sunshade and that ammunition was found with the gun. No reliable report reviewed for this article says Stahlberg’s father was harmed, and the public complaint descriptions do not establish that Stahlberg reached his father’s property.
The recovered firearm is one of the most important physical-evidence details disclosed publicly, but the available reports stop short of describing a completed forensic match between that shotgun and the projectile material recovered from Ferdelman. That does not mean such testing was not conducted; it means the results have not been established in the public sources reviewed here. The distinction matters in a pending criminal case. Charging documents typically summarize evidence prosecutors contend establishes probable cause, while later litigation can test the collection, interpretation and admissibility of that evidence.
Stahlberg’s age is another smaller example of why source comparison matters. FOX 9 identified him as 47 in its Sept. 8 report, while the Wright County Sheriff’s Office and other outlets gave his age as 48. This article uses the sheriff’s figure. The reports are more consistent on Ferdelman’s age, identifying him as 57, and on the location, date of the death, time of Stahlberg’s arrest and conclusion that Ferdelman’s death was a homicide.
The charging description also varies slightly among news reports. Law&Crime said Stahlberg had been charged with second-degree murder, while FOX 9 reported that the complaint contained two second-degree murder counts. Minnesota law defines multiple forms of second-degree murder and authorizes a prison term of up to 40 years for the offense. Without a verified copy of the charging counts identifying each statutory subsection, it would be speculative to assign a particular legal theory to either count merely from the news summaries.
Law&Crime reported in September that Stahlberg was being held on bail set at $1 million with conditions or $2 million without conditions. At the time of FOX 9’s report, it was not clear whether he had entered a plea or retained a lawyer. A search for later reliable public reporting through Oct. 20 did not establish a subsequent plea, trial result or other final disposition. As a result, the evidentiary timeline described in the complaint remains the prosecution’s allegation rather than a judicial finding of guilt.
The most consequential unresolved issue is therefore not whether authorities assembled a chronology, but how that chronology will withstand scrutiny as the case moves through court. The calls attributed to Ferdelman, the 1:18 a.m. surveillance image, the discovery of his body, the statewide search and the shotgun recovered from Stahlberg’s truck are distinct pieces of the public record. What they ultimately prove, and how the unexplained timing discrepancy is resolved, are questions for the criminal process rather than conclusions that can be drawn from the charging account alone.
Author note: Last updated October 20, 2026.