2007-M-051                State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Detroit Davis, Jr., Appellant.

A Hennepin County jury found appellant Detroit Davis, Jr., guilty of first- and second-degree murder respectively for the shooting death of Richard Allan; for second-degree murder for the shooting death of Pablo Morocho; and attempted aggravated robbery.  The jury returned a not-guilty verdict on the charge of first-degree murder in the death of Morocho.  On this direct appeal, the Court upheld these convictions

First, the Court held that it would not consider changing its precedents, rules and procedures for judges to consider before admitting evidence about prior convictions.  During trial, the court heard arguments regarding whether evidence of nine felony offenses for which Davis had been convicted was admissible.   Defense counsel objected to the admission of the evidence, arguing that some of the nine convictions were outside the ten-year period set out in the rule, that the offenses had limited impeachment value, that the evidence was more prejudicial than probative, and that, if the evidence of the offenses was found to be admissible, that finding would have a chilling effect on Davis’s willingness to testify on his own behalf.  The district court found that five of the convictions were admissible under Rule 609 and that the probative value of the evidence outweighed its potential for prejudice.  The district court made it clear that the jury would be instructed on the proper use of the evidence.  The Court rejected Davis’ claim that new rules were needed on how to weigh such evidence.

Second, during cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Davis a series of questions that suggested that Davis’s testimony was not credible because he had access to the discovery materials in his case and had heard all the evidence presented against him during the trial, which gave Davis an opportunity to tailor his story to that evidence.  Given our case law, we also conclude that the prosecutor’s questions constituted plain error.  W we also conclude that the state has met its burden, as set out in Ramey, of showing that the misconduct did not affect Davis’s substantial rights.  In this case, the evidence against Davis was substantial and compelling and included his admission that he had shot Allan and Morocho during an attempt to rob them.  A self-defense claim was not available to an armed robber who encounters resistance from his victims.

Third, the Court held that it may have been misconduct for the prosecutor to belittle Davis’ self-defense claim on the stand, but it did not constitute reversible misconduct.

                    Page (Russell Anderson, Paul Anderson, Hanson, Meyer, Barry Anderson, and Gildea

DATE OF DECISION:  July 19, 2007

RECORD NUMBER:  2007-099

FULL OPINION: 

DESCRIPTION:  [MURDER] 

##