2007-M-052                State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Edison Joseph Mahkuk, Appellant, and Edison Joseph Mahkuk, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent.

MAJORITY:  A Hennepin County jury found Mahkuk guilty of one count of first-degree premeditated murder and one count of first-degree premeditated murder for the benefit of a gang for both the death of Benjamin and the death of Burns.  The district court merged the two counts with respect to each victim, entered judgments of conviction for first-degree premeditated murder for the benefit of a gang for each victim, and sentenced Mahkuk to two consecutive terms of life in prison.  On this direct appeal,  the Court reversed the convictions.

First, the Court held that he trial court’s instruction on aiding and abetting was error that relieved the state of its burden to prove an element of the charged offense and was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.  Second, the Court held that a trial court’s partial closure of a courtroom must satisfy the standard set forth in Waller v. Georgia, and thus must be supported by the trial court’s evidentiary findings and remanded for

Third, the Court held that the use of gang expert testimony to prove the charged crime was committed for the benefit of a gang did not exceed the permissible scope of gang expert testimony set out in our case law. 

Fourth, the Court held that the trial court did not err in ruling that the state could elicit testimony regarding the defendant’s previous arrest.  Fifth, the Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to accept the defendant’s stipulation that he was a member of a criminal gang.  Sixth, the Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to declare a mistrial when a state’s witness offered testimony that violated the court’s order.

CONCUR:  Justice Meyer opined: “I concur in the decision of the majority because even under the “substantial reason” standard, I would conclude that the standard for closing the courtroom in this case has not been met.  There is no testimony or evidence from any witness indicating that he or she has been intimidated or threatened.  Nor is there evidence indicating who was intimidating or threatening witnesses or the nature of those threats.  In fact, other than her demeanor while testifying, there is no testimony from White indicating that she felt intimidated or threatened.  Instead, the record simply contains statements from the prosecution indicating that White felt intimidated.  That is not evidence.  Without specific findings about who was being intimidated and the nature of the intimidation, it is impossible to determine whether partial closure was proper.  Therefore, I agree with the majority that we cannot conclude that the closure decision by the trial court was proper, absent evidence in the record and adequate findings by the trial court.”

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

                    Concur: Meyer

DATE OF DECISION:  August 9, 2007

RECORD NUMBER:  2007-113

FULL OPINION: 

DESCRIPTION:  [MURDER] 

##