009-M-117               State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jeremy Jackson, Appellant.

MAJORITY:  Jeremy Jackson appeals his convictions for first-degree murder committed for benefit of a gang and attempted murder committed for benefit of a gang.  On appeal, Jackson argues that he is entitled to new trial because of State discovery violations and because of evidentiary errors.  We affirm.

Because appellant did not show prejudice resulting from alleged discovery violations, he is not entitled to a new trial.

Appellant is not entitled to a new trial based on the district court’s evidentiary rulings.

Appellant is not entitled to relief on the claims raised in his supplemental pro se brief.   

CONCUR:  Justice Page opined:  “While I concur in the result reached by the court, I write separately to note that Minn. R. Crim. P. 9.01, subd. 3(2), is unambiguous and provides that “non-disclosure under this rule shall not extend beyond the time the witnesses or persons are sworn to testify at the trial.”  Given this unambiguous language, it seems to me that before his second trial, Jackson was entitled todiscovery of all otherwise discoverable material and information that was withheld pursuant to the June 27, 2007, court order for witnesses who were sworn to testify at his first trial. 

               Gildea (Magnuson, Paul Anderson, Meyer, Barry Anderson, and Dietzen)

               Concur:  Page

[MURDER]