2007-M-056                State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Courtney Bernard Clark, Appellant.

MAJORITY:  Courtney Bernard Clark was convicted in Ramsey County for murdering Rodney Foster and attempting to murder Foster’s girlfriend, B.B., while committing or attempting to commit aggravated robbery, kidnapping, and criminal sexual conduct. 

First, the Court held that district court did not err when it admitted statements the defendant made to the police during three interviews when (1) the defendant’s heroin withdrawal symptoms did not prevent him from voluntarily waiving his right to silence; (2) the conduct of the interrogating officers did not deprive the defendant of his ability to make an unconstrained and wholly autonomous decision to speak as he did; and (3) the defendant waived his Sixth Amendment right to counsel during two post-arraignment interviews. 

Second, the Court held that the district court did not err when it admitted statements the defendant made to the police during two post-arraignment interviews because although the prosecutor violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 4.2 by permitting the police to interview the defendant without securing the express consent of the defendant’s lawyer, the state’s conduct was not so egregious as to warrant suppression of the resulting statements under the facts of this case. 

Third, the Court held that the district court abused its discretion in admitting for substantive purposes the defendant’s prior conviction, but a new trial is not warranted because the defendant did not establish that he was prejudiced by the admission of the prior conviction.

 

DISSENT:  Justices Hanson, Page and Meyer opined:  “I would hold that the district court erred in admitting Clark’s post-arraignment statements to police because those statements were obtained through a violation of Rule 4.2 of the Minn. R. Prof. Conduct that was sufficiently egregious to warrant suppression.  And, if we need to reach the issue of the denial of Clark’s constitutional right to counsel, and his related right against compelled self-incrimination, I would also hold that Clark’s constitutional rights were violated.”   [This is an extensive dissent.]

DISSENT: Justice Page opined:   “I join in Justice Hanson’s dissent.  I write separately to make a number of additional points.  The court excuses the state’s misconduct stating that  based on our existing case law, Black could reasonably have believed that his obligation under Rule 4.2 was to provide Clark’s lawyer with notice and an opportunity to be present at the post-arraignment interviews.   The court makes that statement without any explanation as to why Balck’s belief could be reasonable.  Given the plain, clear, and unambiguous language of Rule 4.2, any belief that the rule required only notice and the opportunity to be present could not be reasonable.”

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

                    Dissent:  Hanson, Page and Meyer

                    Dissent:  Page

DATE OF DECISION:  September 13, 2007

RECORD NUMBER:  2007-128

FULL OPINION: 

DESCRIPTION:  [MURDER] 

##