2006-M-22 State
of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Matthew Martin Scanlon, Appellant.
DESCRIPTION OF CRIME: On September 22, 2003, Vermont “Ike” Isaacson was robbed and
killed with a shotgun at his bait shop in Hennepin County.
THE INVESTIGATION: The last person seen with Isaacson was Scanlon.
Scanlon had worked in the shop, was cash-strapped, and had previously remarked
that Isaacson would be “an easy guy to knock off” because he was a loner and
carried a lot of money on him.
On September 23, 2003, Scanlon was arrested and interviewed after
police had received evidence that a truck matching Scanlon’s truck had been
seen late on the evening of the murder, another said he had seen Scanlon at the
bait shop earlier in the evening, his aunt reported that Scanlon had given her
$1,000-$1,250 in medium bills, and others reported he had bought gas and
groceries. The next morning, Scanlon bought $100 of tools, anti-freeze,
and a water pump for his truck, bought lunch and loaned cash to a cousin for
gambling, and paid over $800 for truck repairs. Scanlon had $300 or $400
in his wallet. Police had found a twelve-gauge shotgun and boxes of
Federal brand number five shot in Scanlon’s apartment that were consistent with
evidence from the murder scene.
Scanlon statement on September
23, 2003: Scanlon was first interviewed
on September 23, 2003, after he was taken into custody and received a Miranda
warning. He spoke with police for a time and then requested
counsel. The district court allowed officers to testify regarding the
information elicited from Scanlon before he requested counsel, but excluded any
testimony from the interview after the request for counsel. Scanlon was
released after approximately a month.
Scanlon statement on December 23,
2003: Scanlon was not arrested, was
told that he was not under arrest, was told that he was not obligated to speak
with the investigator, and in the words of the district court, “at the end of
the interview Investigator Talbot and [Scanlon] discussed their back problems,
had a laugh, and even exchanged pleasantries.” The district court ruled
that because of the two-month break in custody and the fact that Scanlon was
not in custody at the time of the December 23 interview, Scanlon’s September 23
invocation of the right to counsel did not bar the admission of his December 23
statements.
Scanlon statement on March 27, 2004: Scanlon was again interrogated, shortly after he was arrested for
Isaacson’s murder. Scanlon does not contest that he was read and waived
his Miranda rights at this interview. This time, when asked where
he got the money to pay his aunt, Scanlon said he got part of it from a money
order and part from a sleeping bag where he stashed money. Again, he did
not mention winning any money at Mystic Lake.
Scanlon also gave different versions of his route home from the bait
shop. Construction workers found Isaacson’s driver’s license near the
intersection of highways 494 and 62, on one of the routes Scanlon reported
taking home. Upon searching the area where the license was found, police
officers further discovered Isaacson’s hunting license, DNR site tag, and other
cards with Isaacson’s name on them. Isaacson’s wallet was not recovered.
Alternative perpetrator evidence. Prior to trial, Scanlon notified the
court that he intended to present evidence of an alternative perpetrator, S.A.,
who lived across the street from the bait shop. Allegedly, a neighbor,
Mark Eliseuson, had told a friend, one of Scanlon’s aunts, and a defense
investigator that S.A. had told Eliseuson that S.A. had killed Isaacson.
But at the pretrial hearing on the
alternative perpetrator issue, Eliseuson stated that S.A. had not confessed to
the murder, but had only said “If I would have done it, I would have gotten
away with it.” The friend and the aunt testified that Eliseuson told them
that S.A. had confessed to killing Isaacson.
The tape of Eliseuson’s statement to
the defense investigator was unclear. Eliseuson did testify that S.A. was a
drug dealer and carried guns. In addition to impeachment testimony,
Scanlon submitted to the court evidence that S.A. was convicted in connection
with the kidnapping of his wife, and had been a suspect in a recent gun theft
case.
The district court excluded the alternative perpetrator evidence,
concluding that the only connection between S.A. and the crime was impeachment
statements consisting of several levels of hearsay. The court concluded,
“[w]here somebody told somebody told somebody that he heard somebody say
something, and that’s kind of where we’re at. I don’t think it rises to
the level of evidence with an inherent tendency to connect [S.A.] to the actual
murder of Ike Isaacson.”
THE TRIAL: On January 22, 2005, a jury in Hennepin County
found Scanlon guilty of first-degree premeditated murder. The district
court sentenced Scanlon to life imprisonment.
THIS APPEAL: On direct appeal, Scanlon alleged that: (1) his
statements of December 23, 2003, and March 27, 2004, were erroneously admitted
in violation of his Fifth Amendment right to counsel; (2) he was erroneously
prohibited from admitting evidence of an alternative perpetrator; (3) the
state’s discovery violations cumulatively deprived him of a fair trial; and,
(4) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction.
Justice Gildea joined the unanimous decision by Justice Barry
Anderson on this direct appeal to uphold Scanlon’s conviction and sentence.
First, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that when months have elapsed
between a defendant’s invocation of the right to counsel and the defendant’s
subsequent statements, the defendant was sufficiently “out of custody” to
nullify the Edwards invocation under both the Fifth Amendment to the
Federal Constitution and Article 1, Section 7 of the Minnesota Constitution.
Second, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that inadmissible hearsay
statements cannot inherently connect an alternative perpetrator to a crime, and
thus the alternative perpetrator evidence here was properly excluded.
Additionally, as there was no evidence inherently connecting the alternative
perpetrator to the crime, the district court did not err in excluding reverse-Spreigl
evidence concerning the alleged alternative perpetrator.
Third, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the state’s discovery
violations did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial because the discovery
violations were the result of oversight or mistake, not deliberate attempts to
hide facts or surprise the defense, and none of the violations were
prejudicial, singly or cumulatively.
Fourth, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that a conviction based on
circumstantial evidence will only be upheld if, when viewing the evidence in a
light most favorable to the conviction, reasonable inferences from the
circumstantial evidence are consistent only with the defendant’s guilt and
inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt. The
circumstantial evidence at issue was sufficient to uphold the verdict against
Scanlon.
DATE OF DECISION: August 10, 2006
RECORD NUMBER: 2006-144
DESCRIPTION: [MURDER] [ROBBERY]
No comments:
Post a Comment