Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea of the Minnesota Supreme Court has helped to decide about 400 cases involving murder.
The Minnesota Constitution required that the Supreme Court hear the first "direct appeal" from people convicted of first-degree murder.
The Supreme Court may also grant "discretionary review" to many "post-conviction appeals" by persons convicted of first-degree murder.
"Discretionary reviews" may also be granted to people convicted of lesser degrees of murder, manslaughter, or criminal vehicular homicide. Cases are also sometimes considered on such issues as restitution ordered by the trial court, sentencing issues, and allegations of newly-discovered evidence.
As a result, about 25 percent of the cases heard each year by the Supreme Court involve some question about homicide.
If you would like to read summaries of the 400 homicide cases which Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea has helped to decide, go here.
But this website features ten of the most salient murder cases of the past twelve years.
1. Three trials for the most evil murderer of recent times.
2. The Vampires of St. Cloud.
3. Texting a Family during their Daughter's Murder.
4. Dropping Your ID at a Murder Scene.
5. Bloody footprints in the snow leading to your house next door.
6. Using the Victim's credit card 48 times in the next 48 hours.
7. Killing three people who treated the killer like a son.
8. Killing a neighbor because he fed the deer.
9. Crashing the get-away car.
10. Hiding the bloody shirt in the back of a truck owned by the deputy sheriff.
Wednesday, October 18, 2017
1. Minnesota is so fair that it took three trials of its most evil man!
Josue Robles Fraga was accused of a first-degree murder in 2008.
was convicted of first-degree murder at his first trial. But he won a new trial in 2012 because he persuaded the trial judge that his son had lied at the first trial.
Fraga was convicted of first-degree murder at his second trial. But he won a third trial in 2015 because he persuaded the Supreme Court that the trial court had erred by seating a juror who was the son-in-law of a nurse in the Emergency Room shortly after the victim was pronounced dead and expressed her belief that Fraga was guilty. The juror admitted he had a bias against Fraga.
At his third trial, the truth emerged, led to a conviction, and triggered a finding that Fraga had raped and murdered his two-year-old niece while she was in his custody at his trailer home in Worthington.
It took ten years and three trials, but Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea wrote the unanimous 2017 opinion for the Supreme Court which upheld Fraga's conviction and sentence to life in prison without the possibility of release.
At the third trial ample evidence was produced.
Fraga sold adult videos in Worthington.
Police and emergency room personnel testified that Fraga and his wife said that Fraga picked up his wife at work and returned to the mobile home at mat 2:30 a,m, on March 20, 2008 where they lived with their children and the niece and nephew for whom they cared and received Social Security payments.The six children slept in one room. Fraga woke his wife at 5:00 a.m. and said S.R. was not breathing.
At the emergency room, hospital personnel testified that they saw bruises on S.R.’s forehead, and the
back of her head felt soft and “cushy,” indicating swelling and a buildup of fluid. Her
genitals were traumatized and swollen and her stomach was discolored and distended. S.R. also had a rectal prolapse, meaning “that part of the rectum was sticking out” of her body.
S.R. was unresponsive, not breathing, cold to the touch with a body temperature of 84 degrees, and she had no pulse. Resuscitation efforts failed and she was pronounced dead at 6:18 that morning.
The medical examiner testified that he had conducted an autopsy that day. Based on S.R.’s low body temperature at the emergency room and the condition of
her body, the medical examiner concluded that she died sometime between 9:30 p.m. on
March 19 and 1:30 a.m. on March 20. The medical examiner noted multiple contusions on
S.R.’s head and body, including her forehead, elbows, knees, and back. S.R. had traumatic
head injuries, suggesting a number of substantial impacts to her head, which the examiner
believed caused her death. S.R.’s hair was also “basically falling off her head” during the autopsy, which would not occur so soon after death unless she was losing hair while alive, likely because of malnutrition, extreme stress, or vitamin deficiency.
The medical examiner also testified that S.R. had an enlarged stomach because of a 2-inch tear in her stomach lining, which caused contents from her stomach to spill into her abdominal cavity. The
likely cause of the rupture was substantial stomach compression resulting from external pressure to S.R.’s abdomen. S.R. also had abrasions on her mouth and lips and an injury to the inside of her mouth, suggesting to the medical examiner that somebody may have applied pressure to her mouth, likely to keep her quiet.
Finally, the medical examiner testified that S.R. had extensive physical trauma to her sexual organs and a prolapsed rectum. S.R. had a hemorrhage more than 2 inches long inside her rectum. In the medical examiner’s opinion, the rectal prolapse and injuries were caused by “some kind of forceful
penetration to the rectal area.” No semen deposits were found on S.R.’s body. But feces and semen were found on S.R.’s diaper. Police were able to exclude Fraga and one of his sons, Child A, as contributors to the semen but were otherwise unable to identify the source of the semen.
Police testified that Fraga's son, Child A had given them a statement to favor Fraga, but only after Child A had received a long phone call from the hotel where Fraga was staying.
Police testified that they had found voluminous semen samples from many places in the mobile home, as well as a roll of duct tape on the bathroom vanity, strips of duct tape in the bathroom waste basket, sexual enhancement drugs and lubricant in Fraga's bedroom, Fraga's wife testified that the duct tape had not been in the bathroom when she left for work earlier. Fraga's semen was found on a sock.
An expert testified that S.R. and her brother had been suffering from malnutrition.
Fraga's wife testified that he beat her about once per month. Fraga's four children reported that he routinely beat them with a belt until it hurt to sit down.
The man who was both S.R.'s father and Fraga's younger brother testified that as a teen, Fraga had raped him on at least two occasions.
S.R.'s brother was sent to live with a foster mother after the girl's murder. She testified that S.R.'s brother told her that Fraga had "stuck something in his butt."
Fraga's daughter Child B testified that he had raped her "many times.
Child B also testified that she had watched Fraga murder S.R. in the bathroom.
Child B testified on the night of the murder, Fraga too her from her bed to the master bedroom and tried to remove her clothes as he had done "many times before," giving her pills and using "gel" before he penetrated her.
This was the first time she had refused. Angry, Fraga had taken Child B into the bathroom where he taped her to a chair. He then seized the sleeping S.R. from her bed and brought he to the bathroom.
Child B testified that Fraga repeatedly thrust S.R.’s head into the toilet while flushing it. Then Fraga held S.R.’s head under the bathtub’s faucet with her face pointing up as he turned on the water. Fraga repeated this several times, while also putting his hand over S.R.’s face to keep her from screaming. At one point, Fraga put so much pressure on S.R.’s stomach that feces and blood came out of her rectum. Child B remembers Fraga telling Child B “that’s what happens when [you] refuse [me].”
Child B testified that Fraga eventually untaped her from the chair and let her return to the children’s bedroom. He warned her that he would hurt her mother and brothers if she told anybody about the abuse. She returned to bed, but she could still hear S.R. struggling and screaming in the bathroom. Then all sounds from the bathroom ceased.
Fraga was convicted and sentenced to life without release.
READ THE CASE DECISION:
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Josue Robles Fraga, Appellant.
Gildea (Anderson, Stras, Lillehaug, Hudson, Chutich, McKeig)
was convicted of first-degree murder at his first trial. But he won a new trial in 2012 because he persuaded the trial judge that his son had lied at the first trial.
Fraga was convicted of first-degree murder at his second trial. But he won a third trial in 2015 because he persuaded the Supreme Court that the trial court had erred by seating a juror who was the son-in-law of a nurse in the Emergency Room shortly after the victim was pronounced dead and expressed her belief that Fraga was guilty. The juror admitted he had a bias against Fraga.
At his third trial, the truth emerged, led to a conviction, and triggered a finding that Fraga had raped and murdered his two-year-old niece while she was in his custody at his trailer home in Worthington.
It took ten years and three trials, but Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea wrote the unanimous 2017 opinion for the Supreme Court which upheld Fraga's conviction and sentence to life in prison without the possibility of release.
At the third trial ample evidence was produced.
Fraga sold adult videos in Worthington.
Police and emergency room personnel testified that Fraga and his wife said that Fraga picked up his wife at work and returned to the mobile home at mat 2:30 a,m, on March 20, 2008 where they lived with their children and the niece and nephew for whom they cared and received Social Security payments.The six children slept in one room. Fraga woke his wife at 5:00 a.m. and said S.R. was not breathing.
At the emergency room, hospital personnel testified that they saw bruises on S.R.’s forehead, and the
back of her head felt soft and “cushy,” indicating swelling and a buildup of fluid. Her
genitals were traumatized and swollen and her stomach was discolored and distended. S.R. also had a rectal prolapse, meaning “that part of the rectum was sticking out” of her body.
S.R. was unresponsive, not breathing, cold to the touch with a body temperature of 84 degrees, and she had no pulse. Resuscitation efforts failed and she was pronounced dead at 6:18 that morning.
The medical examiner testified that he had conducted an autopsy that day. Based on S.R.’s low body temperature at the emergency room and the condition of
her body, the medical examiner concluded that she died sometime between 9:30 p.m. on
March 19 and 1:30 a.m. on March 20. The medical examiner noted multiple contusions on
S.R.’s head and body, including her forehead, elbows, knees, and back. S.R. had traumatic
head injuries, suggesting a number of substantial impacts to her head, which the examiner
believed caused her death. S.R.’s hair was also “basically falling off her head” during the autopsy, which would not occur so soon after death unless she was losing hair while alive, likely because of malnutrition, extreme stress, or vitamin deficiency.
The medical examiner also testified that S.R. had an enlarged stomach because of a 2-inch tear in her stomach lining, which caused contents from her stomach to spill into her abdominal cavity. The
likely cause of the rupture was substantial stomach compression resulting from external pressure to S.R.’s abdomen. S.R. also had abrasions on her mouth and lips and an injury to the inside of her mouth, suggesting to the medical examiner that somebody may have applied pressure to her mouth, likely to keep her quiet.
Finally, the medical examiner testified that S.R. had extensive physical trauma to her sexual organs and a prolapsed rectum. S.R. had a hemorrhage more than 2 inches long inside her rectum. In the medical examiner’s opinion, the rectal prolapse and injuries were caused by “some kind of forceful
penetration to the rectal area.” No semen deposits were found on S.R.’s body. But feces and semen were found on S.R.’s diaper. Police were able to exclude Fraga and one of his sons, Child A, as contributors to the semen but were otherwise unable to identify the source of the semen.
Police testified that Fraga's son, Child A had given them a statement to favor Fraga, but only after Child A had received a long phone call from the hotel where Fraga was staying.
Police testified that they had found voluminous semen samples from many places in the mobile home, as well as a roll of duct tape on the bathroom vanity, strips of duct tape in the bathroom waste basket, sexual enhancement drugs and lubricant in Fraga's bedroom, Fraga's wife testified that the duct tape had not been in the bathroom when she left for work earlier. Fraga's semen was found on a sock.
An expert testified that S.R. and her brother had been suffering from malnutrition.
Fraga's wife testified that he beat her about once per month. Fraga's four children reported that he routinely beat them with a belt until it hurt to sit down.
The man who was both S.R.'s father and Fraga's younger brother testified that as a teen, Fraga had raped him on at least two occasions.
S.R.'s brother was sent to live with a foster mother after the girl's murder. She testified that S.R.'s brother told her that Fraga had "stuck something in his butt."
Fraga's daughter Child B testified that he had raped her "many times.
Child B also testified that she had watched Fraga murder S.R. in the bathroom.
Child B testified on the night of the murder, Fraga too her from her bed to the master bedroom and tried to remove her clothes as he had done "many times before," giving her pills and using "gel" before he penetrated her.
This was the first time she had refused. Angry, Fraga had taken Child B into the bathroom where he taped her to a chair. He then seized the sleeping S.R. from her bed and brought he to the bathroom.
Child B testified that Fraga repeatedly thrust S.R.’s head into the toilet while flushing it. Then Fraga held S.R.’s head under the bathtub’s faucet with her face pointing up as he turned on the water. Fraga repeated this several times, while also putting his hand over S.R.’s face to keep her from screaming. At one point, Fraga put so much pressure on S.R.’s stomach that feces and blood came out of her rectum. Child B remembers Fraga telling Child B “that’s what happens when [you] refuse [me].”
Child B testified that Fraga eventually untaped her from the chair and let her return to the children’s bedroom. He warned her that he would hurt her mother and brothers if she told anybody about the abuse. She returned to bed, but she could still hear S.R. struggling and screaming in the bathroom. Then all sounds from the bathroom ceased.
Fraga was convicted and sentenced to life without release.
READ THE CASE DECISION:
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Josue Robles Fraga, Appellant.
Gildea (Anderson, Stras, Lillehaug, Hudson, Chutich, McKeig)
Date: June 28, 2017
2. The Vampires of St. Cloud!
2007-M-31 Timothy Michael Erickson, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent.
DESCRIPTION OF CRIME: On March 21, 1988, Erickson and his brother shared a St. Cloud apartment where they sheltered several younger homeless teens. The group had discussed forming a “teenage vampire cult.” Donald Gall arrived at the Erickson apartment "sloppy drunk.” There and at Riverside Park, the group continued to drink and smoke marijuana through the night.
When Gall passed out, Erickson recruited some of the group for the following actions. Erickson clubbed Gall with a log while two others kicked him in the ribs. Erickson slit Gall’s throat. Erickson and his accomplices drank blood from the wound, licked blood from their hands, and robbed Gall’s body of a leather jacket, a watch, a wallet, and other items. They dumped the body in some open water in the frozen Mississippi River. They burned the club, they stopped to buy cigarettes with Gall’s money and returned to the apartment.
Erickson told the two girls staying with the Erickson brothers that he had killed Gall by beating him with a log and stabbing him with a knife and that he had thrown Gall's body into the river. Erickson bragged that he had drunk Gall's blood and licked the blood from his hands. Gall's blood-soaked jacket and the other items taken from Gall were exhibited as proof of the crime.
That morning Erickson’s brother described the killing to Benedict and that evening defendant told Bill Benedict about the murder, saying that Gall's death was "not really that big of a deal." At about 4:00 a.m. on March 24, 1988, a drunken Benedict wandered into the St. Cloud Law Enforcement Center and reported the murder. Gall's body was soon discovered floating in the river a short distance downstream from the campsite, and shortly thereafter defendant was arrested at the St. Cloud bus terminal. Erickson was taken to the interrogation room at the law enforcement center where he was advised of his Miranda rights. Defendant initially denied any involvement in the murder, but after tests showed the presence of blood on his jacket and boots, defendant began to cry and confessed to the murder. The initial confession was not recorded, but defendant immediately repeated his confession to a police stenographer.
THE TRIAL: The trial was bifurcated. Erickson's defense in the “guilt” phase of the trial was that voluntary intoxication had rendered him incapable of forming an intention to murder. The jury found defendant guilty of murder in the first degree.
In the second ”insanity defense” phase of the trial, Erickson claimed that mental illness rendered him incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that it was wrong. The jury reaffirmed the guilty verdict. Erickson was sentenced to life in prison.
THE DIRECT APPEAL: On December 22, 1989, the Minnesota Supreme Court rejected Erickson’s claims that: 1) he was so intoxicated that he could not form the requisite statutory intent or premeditation; 2) he had proved by a preponderance of the evidence that mental illness had rendered him incapable of knowing the nature of his act or its wrongfulness; and 3) the trial court erroneously admitted his confession, which was coerced and taken in violation of his right to counsel. Justice Coyne wrote the unanimous opinion for the Court.
THIS APPEAL: On Erickson’s first post-conviction appeal, Erickson’s chaotic brief was reorganized under five general grounds for relief: (1) denial of a fair trial; (2) prosecutorial misconduct; (3) judicial misconduct; (4) ineffective assistance of trial counsel; and (5) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
Justice Gildea joined the unanimous decision by Justice Sam Hanson to uphold Erickson’s conviction and sentence.
In his reply brief Erickson concedes that many of the issues he raised in his brief to this court “should have been raised during trial and or during the appeal process.” We agree and conclude that Erickson’s claims of denial of a fair trial, prosecutorial misconduct, and judicial misconduct are procedurally barred under our post-conviction case law. We have said that “where direct appeal has once been taken, all matters raised therein, and all claims known but not raised, will not be considered upon a subsequent petition for post-conviction relief.” State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252, 243 N.W.2d 737, 741 (1976). There are two exceptions to the Knaffla rule: (1) if a novel legal issue is presented, or (2) if the interests of justice require review.
First, the Minnesota Supreme Court rejected Erickson’s claims regarding his alleged denial of a fair trial.
Erickson’s claims of denial of a fair trial were known and could have been raised on direct appeal. The post-conviction petition demonstrates that the evidentiary source for these claims is the transcript of the pretrial and trial proceedings. Further, Erickson does not argue for, and these claims do not fit, either Knaffla exception—they are not novel because the legal basis to bring them was available on direct appeal.
Second, the Minnesota Supreme Court rejected Erickson’s claims regarding alleged prosecutorial misconduct.
Erickson’s claims of prosecutorial misconduct were known and could have been raised on direct appeal. The post-conviction petition demonstrates that the evidentiary source for these claims is the transcript of the pretrial and trial proceedings. Further, Erickson does not argue for, and these claims do not fit, either Knaffla exception—they are not novel because the legal basis to bring them was available on direct appeal.
Third, the Minnesota Supreme Court rejected Erickson’s claims regarding alleged judicial misconduct.
Erickson’s claims of judicial misconduct were known and could have been raised on direct appeal. The post-conviction petition demonstrates that the evidentiary source for these claims is the transcript of the pretrial and trial proceedings. Further, Erickson does not argue for, and these claims do not fit, either Knaffla exception—they are not novel because the legal basis to bring them was available on direct appeal.
Fourth, the Minnesota Supreme Court rejected Erickson’s claims regarding alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
Erickson’s ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims, including the right to be present at pretrial conferences, attorney conflicts of interest, and counsel’s failure to follow Erickson’s instructions, are based on the trial record and are Knaffla- barred. Erickson’s claims are not novel because they were available to Erickson during his direct appeal. And Erickson has not provided any reasons justifying application of the fairness exception
Fifth, the Minnesota Supreme Court rejected Erickson’s claims regarding alleged ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
Erickson also argues that he received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. He suggests two grounds: (1) that his counsel “did not introduce material” that he should have introduced during the direct appeal; and (2) that his counsel refused to continue to represent him after completion of his direct appeal. This claim is not procedurally barred under Knaffla because it could not have been raised on direct appeal. But Erickson has not alleged sufficient facts in support of the claim to warrant an evidentiary hearing.
DATE OF DECISION: January 4, 2007
RECORD NUMBER: 2007-003
DESCRIPTION: [MURDER]
3. Don't Text Her Family While You Kill Her!
BACKGROUND: On September 2, 2013, Dikken broke into the Granite Falls home of his ex-girlfriend and shot Cara Monson and Chris Panitzke as they slept. Monson died instantly, but Panitzke briefly survived five shots and called 9-1-1 after Dikken left the house. Police caught Dikken sleeping in the woods after a15-day manhunt.
Shortly before he murdered Monson and Panitzke, Dikken texted Monson’s family with the message that “everyone is getting what they deserve.” After Dikken’s sentencing, Monson’s brother told reporters that “now Andy Dikken is getting what he deserves.”
The State charged Dikken with two counts of second-degree intentional murder. Before an omnibus hearing, Dikken offered to plead guilty to two counts of second-degree murder with no conditions. The State then notified the court and Dikken that it planned to ask a grand jury to indict Dikken of two counts of premeditated first-degree intentional murder.
At the omnibus hearing, Dikken filed a motion to pled guilty to two counts of second-degree murder. The district court denied the motion. The Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure provide: “If the complaint charges a homicide, and the prosecuting attorney notifies the court that the case will be presented to the grand jury . . . the defendant cannot enter a plea at the Rule 8 hearing.” This denial of Dikken’s motion is the focus of this appeal.
Two weeks later, the State secured a grand jury indictment charging Dikken with two counts of first-degree murder.
Dikken ultimately reached a plea agreement with the State under which he pleaded guilty to one count of first-degree premeditated murder and one count of first-degree murder while committing a burglary. The district court accepted the plea, convicted Dikken of both counts, and sentenced him to two concurrent life sentences, one without the possibility of release.
Dikken filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief requesting that he be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea and instead plead guilty to the original second-degree-murder charges. The post-conviction court denied the petition without holding an evidentiary hearing, concluding that there were no material facts in dispute and that Dikken had failed to establish a manifest injustice entitling him to withdraw his plea.
HELD: The Supreme Court affirmed Dikken’s conviction, his sentence, the district court’s observance of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure in denying Dikken’s post-indictment motion to plead to lesser charges, and the post-conviction court’s decisions to not hold a hearing and to deny Dikken’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
“The post-conviction court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the appellant’s request to withdraw his guilty plea. Affirmed.”
Stras (Gildea, Anderson, Lillehaug, Hudson, Chutich, and McKeig)
Date: June 21, 2017
[CRIME] [MURDER]
4. Don't drop your ID at the Murder Scene!
When you are on a robbery spree, do not drop you ID card at a murder scene!
2016-M-342 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Diamond Lee Jamal Griffin, Appellant.
2016-M-342 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Diamond Lee Jamal Griffin, Appellant.
BACKGROUND: Two weeks after Griffin and Grant bought a handgun to commit robberies, Griffin, Grant, and Griffin’s girlfriend J.K. drove out on the event of July 8, 2013 to commit robberies in Minneapolis. While J.K. remained in the car, Griffin and Grant first pistol-whipped a potential robbery victim who successfully ran away.
Griffin and Grant then entered a backyard where Francisco Benitez-Hernandez. his wife L.B.H., and her brother P.Y.E. were drinking beer.
Griffin pistol-whipped Benitez-Hernandez above his eye. As Benitez-Hernandez slumped in his chair, L.B.H. threw a beer bottle t Griffin to distract him. Griffin shot her in the elbow. To defend L.B.H., the bleeding Benitez-Hernandez reached up and grabbed Griffin’s leg. Griffin fatally shot him in the chest. Griffin and Grant fled.
A witness directed police to a nearby parking lot where he had seen a woman waiting and two men run up and leave in the car. The police found J.K.’s identification card where the car had been parked.
the next day, J.K. directed the police to Grant. Police stopped J.K.’s car and arrested Griffin and Grant. Grant directed police to the murder weapon. Grant pleaded guilty to as an accomplice to the felony murder of Benitez-Hernandez, the attempted second-degree murder of L.B-H., and the aggravated robbery of P.Y-E. Grant was sentenced to 234 months for the three crimes.
A Hennepin County grand jury indicted Griffin with six offenses: the first-degree felony murder (Benitez-Hernandez); the second-degree intentional murder (Benitez-Hernandez); the attempt at first-degree felony murder (L.B-H.); the attempt at second-degree intentional murder (L.B-H.); the second-degree assault (P.Y-E.); and the aggravated robbery (P.Y-E.).
At Griffin’s jury trial. Griffin moved for a mistrial when the prosecutor asked J.K. if she had told her employer “I think my boyfriend killed somebody.” Instead, the judge gave a jury instruction to ignore that question. The Supreme Court held that this decision did not deny Griffin a fair trial.
At trial, the court allowed the prosecutor to mention that Griffin had prior trouble with the police in 2008. Such evidence is called Spriegl evidence of a prior bad act by a party. The Supreme Court held that any damage from the admission of this evidence was outweighed by the evidence in this case, which included damaging testimony by L.B.H., P.Y.E., the witness who directed police to J.K.’s identity card, J.K., Grant, the expert who tied Griffin’s gun to the murder, the expert who tied the blood on Griffin’s clothes to the murder, and other evidence.
The jury convicted Griffin of the first-degree felony murder (Benitez-Hernandez), the attempt at first-degree felony murder (L.B-H.), and the second-degree assault (P.Y-E.). The judge sentenced Griffin to life imprisonment without the possibility of release for the first-degree murder, plus consecutive sentences of 153 months for the attempted murder and 36 months for the assault.
MAJORITY: On this direct appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed Griffin’s convictions and sentences.
First, even if the district court erred in admitting Spreigl evidence, there is no reasonable possibility that the evidence significantly affected the verdict.
Second, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied appellant's motion for a mistrial.
Third, the State presented evidence sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant intentionally shot and killed the victim.
Fourth, none of the claims in appellant's pro se brief have merit.
CONCUR: Justice Stras agreed with the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case. He then offered a ten-page essay on how the word “plan” should be construed when considering trial decisions in which Spriegl evidence of a prior bad act is admitted in connection with a “plan” involving the crime at trial.
Hudson (Gildea, Anderson, and Lillehaug)
CONCUR: Stras.
Took No Part: Chutich, and McKeig.
[CRIME] [MURDER] [PREMEDITATED] [FIRST-DEGREE] [ROBBERY]
Date: November 16, 2016
5. Do not leave bloody footprints in the snow to your house next door!
Do not leave footprints in the fresh snow that lead directly from the murder scene to your home next door when you have stabbed an 11-year-old burglary victim 44 times!
2015-M-281 Eugene Erick Fort, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent.
2015-M-281 Eugene Erick Fort, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent.
Appellant Eugene Erick Fort was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and first-degree murder while committing burglary in connection with the 1990 stabbing death of 11-year-old Marcus Potts.
THE CRIME: In the early morning hours of December 15, 1990, 11-year-old Marcus Potts was stabbed 44 times and, as a result, died in his north Minneapolis home. Potts’s mother discovered her son’s body upon her return from work at approximately 2:00 a.m. She called 911 for assistance.
During the initial crime scene investigation, police officers noticed a set of footprints in the snow covering that was on the ground at the time of the murder. A police dog accompanying one of the officers followed the prints from a side door of the Potts’s home to a neighboring house, where Fort lived. This information led the police to focus on Fort as a suspect.
As part of their investigation, the police obtained and executed a search warrant for Fort’s home and interviewed Fort several times.
On December 27, 1990, the police obtained a second search warrant for Fort’s home. Using specialized equipment, which had not been available during the December 15 search, the police detected eight drops of blood in Fort’s home. But the blood samples were too small to be tested using the technology that was available in 1990. By 2001, DNA-testing technology had advanced sufficiently so that the samples could be tested.
The 2001 test results showed that the blood samples from Fort’s home matched Potts’s DNA. In addition to the DNA evidence, four witnesses told police investigators, and ultimately testified at trial that while Fort was in jail during the December 1990 investigation, he confessed that he murdered Potts.
THE CRIME: In the early morning hours of December 15, 1990, 11-year-old Marcus Potts was stabbed 44 times and, as a result, died in his north Minneapolis home. Potts’s mother discovered her son’s body upon her return from work at approximately 2:00 a.m. She called 911 for assistance.
During the initial crime scene investigation, police officers noticed a set of footprints in the snow covering that was on the ground at the time of the murder. A police dog accompanying one of the officers followed the prints from a side door of the Potts’s home to a neighboring house, where Fort lived. This information led the police to focus on Fort as a suspect.
As part of their investigation, the police obtained and executed a search warrant for Fort’s home and interviewed Fort several times.
On December 27, 1990, the police obtained a second search warrant for Fort’s home. Using specialized equipment, which had not been available during the December 15 search, the police detected eight drops of blood in Fort’s home. But the blood samples were too small to be tested using the technology that was available in 1990. By 2001, DNA-testing technology had advanced sufficiently so that the samples could be tested.
The 2001 test results showed that the blood samples from Fort’s home matched Potts’s DNA. In addition to the DNA evidence, four witnesses told police investigators, and ultimately testified at trial that while Fort was in jail during the December 1990 investigation, he confessed that he murdered Potts.
THE APPEALS: We affirmed Fort’s conviction for premeditated first-degree murder, but vacated Fort’s conviction for first-degree murder while committing burglary on the ground that a defendant may only be convicted of one count of first-degree murder in connection with the murder of a single victim.
We also affirmed the denial of Fort’s first petition for postconviction relief. in 2013.
In this, his second post-conviction appeal, Fort claims ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. He also claims that the State mishandled evidence. Because Fort’s claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel fails as a matter of law, and his remaining claims are time barred, the post-conviction court did not abuse its discretion in summarily denying Fort’s petition. We therefore affirm
Page (Gildea, Anderson, Dietzen, Stras, Wright, and Lillehaug)
[MURDER]
6. Don't use the Credit Card 48 Times in 48 Hours!
Don't use the victim's credit card 48 times in the 48 hours before your arrest, especially if you are going to explain to your real girlfriend that the victim was just a woman, somebody he used as a cash cow!"
2015-M-283 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Thomas James Fox, Appellant.
2015-M-283 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Thomas James Fox, Appellant.
Appellant Thomas Fox was found guilty by a Washington County jury of first-degree premeditated murder and first-degree felony murder arising out of the December 2011 stabbing death of Lori Baker.
THE CRIME: On the morning of December 28, 2011, Oakdale police responded to a call that the
body of Lori Baker had been discovered in her apartment. Upon their arrival, police found the victim’s body on the bedroom floor, covered by a comforter “soaked with blood.” A Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) crime scene team processed Baker’s apartment. The BCA found blood spatter on the wall, what appeared to be laundry detergent throughout the bedroom, and empty containers of laundry detergent, rubbing alcohol, and a cleaning product on the bedroom floor. Baker’s silver Mazda hatchback was not found in the parking lot or garage.
The medical examiner (ME) concluded that Baker died from exsanguination caused by 48 stab wounds to multiple parts of her body. The ME observed blunt force injuries to Baker’s body, including contusions around her left eye, abrasions on the back of her head, and injuries consistent with someone placing a hand over her mouth. The ME determined that the weapon used was “probably” a “kitchen type knife.”
Police learned that Fox was dating Baker and that Fox stayed in Baker’s apartment some of the time. A woman who lived in the apartment directly below Baker’s unit told police that she heard stomping noises and then repetitive, loud screaming that lasted about 10 minutes coming from Baker’s apartment around 11:00 p.m. on December 27.
Additionally, Baker’s debit card had been used in about 48 transactions in 15 different locations between the evening of December 27 and the afternoon of December 29. Police obtained surveillance videos, which show Fox and a vehicle matching the description of Baker’s vehicle involved in several of those transactions.
Fox was located with Baker's car and cards and arrested on December 29, 20.
Fox's friend J.N. testified Fox told her that Lori was “just a woman that he had met that he was getting money from—just getting money from, somebody like a cash cow.”
THE CRIME: On the morning of December 28, 2011, Oakdale police responded to a call that the
body of Lori Baker had been discovered in her apartment. Upon their arrival, police found the victim’s body on the bedroom floor, covered by a comforter “soaked with blood.” A Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) crime scene team processed Baker’s apartment. The BCA found blood spatter on the wall, what appeared to be laundry detergent throughout the bedroom, and empty containers of laundry detergent, rubbing alcohol, and a cleaning product on the bedroom floor. Baker’s silver Mazda hatchback was not found in the parking lot or garage.
The medical examiner (ME) concluded that Baker died from exsanguination caused by 48 stab wounds to multiple parts of her body. The ME observed blunt force injuries to Baker’s body, including contusions around her left eye, abrasions on the back of her head, and injuries consistent with someone placing a hand over her mouth. The ME determined that the weapon used was “probably” a “kitchen type knife.”
Police learned that Fox was dating Baker and that Fox stayed in Baker’s apartment some of the time. A woman who lived in the apartment directly below Baker’s unit told police that she heard stomping noises and then repetitive, loud screaming that lasted about 10 minutes coming from Baker’s apartment around 11:00 p.m. on December 27.
Additionally, Baker’s debit card had been used in about 48 transactions in 15 different locations between the evening of December 27 and the afternoon of December 29. Police obtained surveillance videos, which show Fox and a vehicle matching the description of Baker’s vehicle involved in several of those transactions.
Fox was located with Baker's car and cards and arrested on December 29, 20.
Fox's friend J.N. testified Fox told her that Lori was “just a woman that he had met that he was getting money from—just getting money from, somebody like a cash cow.”
The district court entered judgment of conviction on both counts and sentenced Fox to life imprisonment without the possibility of release on the first-degree premeditated murder conviction.
THIS APPEAL: On direct appeal, Fox argues that the district court erred because (1) the court denied his motion to suppress statements he made to police; (2) the court failed to give his proposed circumstantial evidence instruction to the jury; and (3) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction of
first-degree premeditated murder and first-degree felony murder. Because we conclude that Fox’s arguments lack merit, we affirm.
1. The district court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to suppress the statements he made to police because appellant validly waived his Miranda rights under federal and state constitutional standards.
2. The district court did not err when it declined to give appellant’s proposed jury instruction on circumstantial evidence.
3. The State presented sufficient evidence to support appellant’s convictions.
4. The claims in appellant’s pro se supplemental brief are without merit.
Affirmed.
Dietzen (Gildea, Page, Anderson, Stras, Wright, and Lillehaug)
[MURDER]
7. Don't kill three people who treated you as a Son!
Don't murder the three people who treated you like a son and grandson just because they tried to protect their real daughter and granddaughter from the rapist who molested her!
2014-M-271 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Eddie Matthew Mosley, Appellant.
2014-M-271 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Eddie Matthew Mosley, Appellant.
THE CRIME: James and Clover Bolden lived with their daughter Delois Brown and her daughter W.H. in a Brooklyn Park home where they ran a daycare center. W.H. was the half-sister of Mosley, and DeLois Brown treated Mosley as her son. Mosley lived in St. Louis, but he frequently travelled to Minnesota and stayed with Delois Brown. That changed in the winter of 2011-2012.
In November 2011, W.H. reported to police that her daughter had been sexually molested by Mosley.
On April 3, 2012, a criminal complaint charging Mosley with first-degree criminal sexual conduct was mailed to his residence in St. Louis.
On April 5, 2012, W.H. received 25 phone calls and 13 text messages from Mosley in St. Louis in which he stated, among other things, that “30 years . . . that’s life,” “we family sis this not the way,” and asked W.H. to make the charges go away.
On April 8, 2012, Mosley paid a friend to drive him to Minnesota. They arrived in Brooklyn Park before dawn. The friend saw Mosely within a few blocks of the Brown home.
Later that morning, on April 9, 2012, the Boldens and Brown were found shot to death in Brown’s house. Following a police investigation, Mosley was indicted. Mosley waived his right to a jury trial, and the district court held a bench trial.
Mosley was convicted of three counts of first-degree premeditated murder and sentenced to three consecutive terms of life imprisonment without possibility of release.
Appellant Eddie Matthew Mosley was indicted by a Hennepin County grand jury on three counts of first-degree premeditated murder, three counts of first-degree felony murder (burglary of an occupied dwelling), and three counts of first-degree felony murder (burglary while possessing a firearm), arising out of the shooting deaths of DeLois Brown, James Bolden, and Clover Bolden.
Following a bench trial, Mosley was convicted of three counts of first-degree premeditated murder, and the district court imposed three consecutive life sentences without the possibility of release.
THIS APPEAL: In this first post-conviction appeal, Mosley is claiming he was entitled to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence in the form of affidavits signed by five alibi witnesses. He also claimed his trial counsel and appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance. The post-conviction court denied his petition.
Following a bench trial, Mosley was convicted of three counts of first-degree premeditated murder, and the district court imposed three consecutive life sentences without the possibility of release.
In 2014, the Supreme Court rejected his direct appeal and affirmed his convictions and sentence.
THIS APPEAL: In this first post-conviction appeal, Mosley is claiming he was entitled to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence in the form of affidavits signed by five alibi witnesses. He also claimed his trial counsel and appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance. The post-conviction court denied his petition.
1. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a witness’s in-court identification of appellant because the testimony did not violate appellant’s due process rights and was relevant and not unfairly prejudicial.
2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding appellant’s proposed expert testimony on the problems with eyewitness identification because the proffered testimony would not be helpful to the trier of fact, and other safeguards were present to protect appellant against unreliable in-court identification testimony.
3. Appellant’s claims of prosecutorial misconduct lack merit.
Affirmed.
Dietzen (Gildea, Page, Anderson, Stras, Wright, and Lillehaug)
[MURDER]
8. The Sentence for Feeding Deer is Death!
You fed the deer in your yard, so I will torment you for months and then kill you, you Bambi-feeder!
2017-M-345 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Neal Curtis Zumberge, Appellant.
2017-M-345 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Neal Curtis Zumberge, Appellant.
BACKGROUND: Neal and Paula Zumberge did not like it when their neighbors Todd Stevens and Jennifer Cleven fed wild deer in their yard. The Zumberges circulated neighborhood petitions, sounded air horns to frighten the deer, and may have left mutilated squirrels in the neighbor’s yard. The Zumberges’ son may have threatened to kill Cleven. Cleven secured a restraining order.
In May, 2014, Cleven saw the Zumberge son in a bar and called police who arrested the son for an alleged death threat. The Zumberge parents were informed. When Cleven returned home that evening, she and Paula stood by their front doors and shouted at each other across the street. The two men emerged and the shouting continued. Zumberge retrieved his gun and fatally shot Stevens three times and wounded Cleven with a fourth shot.
After a Ramsey County jury convicted Zumberge on all counts, the district judge sentenced Zumberge to life imprisonment without release for the murder of Stevens and to 180 months for the attempted murder of Kl even.
HELD: On this direct appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed Zumberge’s conviction and sentence.
The district court did not abuse its discretion when, by pretrial order, it excluded certain evidence proffered by appellant. The district court's exclusion of one piece of evidence was harmless error. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied appellant's request for a third-degree murder instruction. The district court did not err when it denied appellant's motion to dismiss the charge of first-degree murder.
Lillehaug (Gildea, Anderson, Stras, Hudson, Chutich, and McKeig)
Date: January 04, 2017
[CRIME] [MURDER][PREMEDITATED] [FIRST-DEGREE] [FEUD]
9. Don't roll the car in your Get-away flight
f you slash your grandmother 60 times and steal her car, don't roll the vehicle during your get-away!
2016-M-315 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Ishmael Roberts, Appellant.
2016-M-315 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Ishmael Roberts, Appellant.
THE CRIME: In 1996, Roberts was “adopted” from Liberia in his mid-teens and was moved to Minnesota by his “grandmother” B.W. On October 29th, 2012, police responded to a stabbing reported at B.W.’s home in Minneapolis. B.W. had been stabbed or slashed 60 times. Another “relative of Roberts, 14-year-old P.W., had been stabbed and slashed 59 times, including a throat wound that nearly severed his head. A resident of B.W.’s home told police she had seen Roberts on the scene an hour before the police alert.
Police noted that B.W.’s car was missing. The car was found in a roll-over accident in Waterloo, Iowa that morning. Police found Roberts a few blocks away. They also found shoes covered with P.W.’s blood.
THE TRIAL: Because Roberts had a long history of mental issues, the trial judge ordered a competency assessment of Roberts. The psychiatrist reported that Roberts knew what he was doing and that what he was doing was morally wrong when he stabbed the two people to death. A second psychiatrist conducted a second analysis of Roberts. He reported that Roberts knew what he had done was morally wrong, as reflected by his conduct before the murders and during his interstate flight.
After a bifurcated trial, the trial judge convicted Roberts of first-degree two counts of premeditated murder and sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of release.
After the second phase, in which the district court heard expert psychiatric testimony, the district court rejected Roberts’s mental-illness defense. Although Roberts “suffered from a mental illness,” the district court found that Roberts did not establish a mental-illness defense, Minn. Stat. § 611.026, because Roberts failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he did not know the nature of his acts or that they were morally wrong at the time of the murders.
THIS APPEAL: On this direct appeal, the Supreme Court held that the district court did not clearly err by finding that appellant failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that appellant did not know his acts were morally wrong at the time that he murdered two of his family members.
Anderson (Gildea, Dietzen, Stras, Lillehaug)
Took No Part: Hudson.
[CRIME] [MURDER] [FIRST-DEGREE] [PREMEDITATED]
Date: March 16, 2016
10. Don't dump your bloody shirt in the back of a pick-up truck of the deputy sheriff.
BACKGROUND: On September 21, 1999, drug dealer Hannon kicked his girlfriend Deborah Tolhurst to death in their St. Cloud apartment while her wrists were bound behind her back. She had just told Hannon that she had AIDS. He then set her body and the apartment ablaze. The blood and skin cells on his shirt were such a match that they could only be linked to one person in the entire population of the world. Hannon had changed shirts in the dark parking lot at a bar and discarded the shirt in the back of a pick-up truck, which belonged to a deputy sheriff.
On June 20, 2000, a jury found appellant Kevin Terrance Hannon guilty of one count of premeditated first-degree murder.
On December 20, 2001, the Supreme Court granted Hannon’s direct appeal from his first conviction. It granted him a new trial because the first judge had admitted Hannon’s confession which police had obtained shortly after he had asked for counsel and said that he did not wish to talk any more.
After a second jury trial, Hannon was found guilty and convicted of first-degree murder while attempting to commit a kidnapping and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of release.
On August 18, 2005, the Supreme Court rejected Hannon’s direct appeal of his conviction in the second trial.
In December, 2006, Hannon filed his first post-conviction appeal. After a hearing, the post-conviction court held that his claims were either barred by a two-year time limit or because they should have been raised on the direct appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed Hannon’s conviction and sentence in 20008.
In January, 2009, Hannon filed his second post-conviction appeal. The post-conviction court held that his claims were either barred by a two-year time limit or because they should have been raised on the direct appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed Hannon’s conviction and sentence in 2010
In September, 2015, Hannon filed this third post-conviction appeal. In 200 pages, Hannon filed twelve categories of claims. Without a hearing, the post-conviction court held that his first 11 categories of claims were barred by the two-year time limit, and the twelfth category of claims relating to sentencing were meritless because they were contradicted by the clear language of the sentencing statute.
Here, the Supreme Court affirmed Hannon’s conviction and sentence for a fourth time in 2017
HELD: The Supreme Court held: “The post-conviction court did not abuse its discretion when it denied appellant’s claims without holding an evidentiary hearing. Affirmed. Considered and decided by the court without oral argument.”
Hudson (Gildea, Anderson, Stras, Lillehaug, Chutich, and McKeig)
Date: February 08, 2017
[ CRIME] [MURDER] [PREMEDITATED] [FIRST-DEGREE]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)