2010-M-144           State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Philander Dermont Jenkins, Appellant.

Appellant Philander Dermont Jenkins was indicted on two counts of first-degree premeditated murder and two counts of first-degree felony murder for the shooting deaths of Lorenzo Porter and Eugene Curry and, after a jury trial, was found guilty on all counts.  The district court entered convictions on the two first-degree premeditated murder counts and imposed consecutive sentences of life in prison without the possibility of release.  In this direct appeal, Jenkins raises the following issues:  (1) whether his arrest pursuant to a Crow Wing County bench warrant was unlawful and, if so, whether his arrest was otherwise supported by probable cause; (2) whether the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized from his person incident to his arrest; (3) whether the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized from the room where he lived; (4) whether the district court erred in excluding alternative-perpetrator evidence; (5) whether the district court erred in excluding certain bias evidence; (6) whether Jenkins‟ right to due process was violated by police; (7) whether his right to due process was violated by prosecutorial misconduct; (8) whether he is entitled to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence; and (9) whether the district court erred in imposing consecutive life sentences.  We affirm Jenkins‟ convictions and sentences.

First, the district court correctly determined that defendant’s arrest and resulting seizure of his clothing was lawful, and the search warrant for defendant’s room was supported by probable cause.

Second, the district court properly excluded alternative-perpetrator evidence regarding four individuals because defendant failed to lay the proper evidentiary foundation.

Third, the district court properly excluded evidence that the State reported a witness to child protective services a year before trial because it was only marginally useful for showing bias.

Fourth, defendant is not entitled to an acquittal for police or prosecutorial misconduct when he fails to prove that the police or prosecutor engaged in any prejudicial misconduct.  Statements by the prosecution that defense attorneys were “dangerous and bulldogs” and “hounds” were improper, but not prejudicial.

Fifth, defendant is not entitled a new trial based on newly discovered evidence when the evidence was known during trial, could have been discovered before trial, and the evidence is not likely to produce a more favorable result.

Sixth, the imposition of two consecutive life sentences without the possibility of release does not violate Minnesota Statutes § 609.035, subdivision 1, in cases involving multiple victims.

Affirmed.

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

[MURDER]