2009-M-129             State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Larry Pearson, Appellant, and Larry Demetrius Pearson, petitioner, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent.

MAJORITY:  On May 23, 2007, a Ramsey County jury found appellant guilty of first-degree premeditated murder, second-degree intentional murder, and the unlawful possession of a firearm  for his involvement in the death of Corodarl Merriman.  The jury found Pearson not guilty of attempted murder for the shooting of Willie Merriman. The trial court convicted Pearson of first-degree murder and sentenced him to life in prison without possibility of release.  The court also convicted Pearson for the possession offense and sentenced him for that offense to a concurrent 60-month sentence. 

Pearson filed a direct appeal as well as a petition for post-conviction relief, which was denied.  Pearson’s direct appeal was consolidated with his appeal from the denial of his post-conviction petition.  In his appeal, Pearson raises the following issues:  (1) whether the trial court erred by admitting as rebuttal evidence a videotaped statement made by Pearson to a police officer; (2) whether the State committed misconduct; and (3) whether Pearson was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel.  We affirm.

First, the trial court did not commit reversible error when it admitted as rebuttal evidence a partially redacted videotape of the defendant’s conversation with a police officer.

Second, the State did not commit misconduct that prejudiced the defendant’s substantial rights.

Third, the defendant has not shown that his counsel’s representation rose to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel.

CONCUR:  Justice Page opined:  “Although I would affirm Pearson’s convictions, I write separately because the court misconstrues our holding in State v. Juarez, 572 N.W.2d 286 (Minn. 1997), and

erroneously concludes that allowing the jury to hear the portions of Pearson’s statements referencing a lawyer was error.

I would conclude that because Pearson’s statements, when taken in context, would not likely lead a jury to believe that Pearson was invoking his right to counsel or be seen as a badge of guilt, the trial court’s failure to sua sponte redact the references was not error, much less an error that was plain.  On that basis, his claim fails. 

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

               Concur:  Page

[MURDER]