2010-M-147             State of Minnesota Respondent, vs. Andy William Prtine, Appellant.

On September 12, 2008, appellant Andy William Prtine was indicted for first-degree premeditated murder and first-degree felony murder for the death of Brent Ward.  On January 21, 2009, a St. Louis County jury acquitted Prtine of first-degree premeditated murder, but found him guilty of first-degree felony murder.  The district court sentenced Prtine to the mandatory term of life in prison. 

In this direct appeal, Prtine raises the following issues:  (1) whether the district court erred when it refused to strike, for cause, a juror who stated that she was more inclined to credit the testimony of police witnesses over that of other witnesses; (2) whether the district court erred when it allowed

the medical examiner to offer his opinion that the victim’s assailant acted with an intent to kill; (3) whether the prosecutor committed misconduct; (4) whether the district court committed plain error when it told the jury there was no need to consider lesser-included offenses if the jury found Prtine guilty of a greater offense; and (5) whether Prtine was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel conceded during closing argument that the State had proven the element of intent.  We remand to the district court to determine whether Prtine acquiesced in his trial counsel’s decision to concede intent.

First, the district court did not commit reversible error by refusing to strike for

cause a juror who stated that she was more inclined to credit the testimony of police

witnesses over that of other witnesses when the defendant used a peremptory strike to

keep the juror from sitting on the jury.

Second, the district court committed error when it allowed the medical examiner to opine that the victim’s assailant acted with an intent to kill, but the error was harmless because there was a wealth of uncontradicted evidence that established that the assailant acted with the intent to kill.

Third, any error attributable to the State’s actions during trial was harmless, as it did not affect appellant’s substantial rights.

Fourth, the district court committed harmless error by telling the jury there was no need to consider the lesser offenses if it found the appellant guilty of a greater offense.

Fifth, remand to the district court is necessary to determine whether the appellant acquiesced in his lawyer’s decision to concede intent.

CONCUR & DISSENT:  Justices Gildea and Dietzen opined:  “I agree with the majority on the evidentiary, misconduct, and lesser-included offense issues, but I write separately to address two issues on which I part company from the majority’s analysis. 

I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the district court abused its discretion in denying Prtine’s challenge for cause of prospective juror J.B.  I also disagree with the majority’s conclusion that we need to remand the question of whether Prtine consented to his attorney’s concession on intent.

CONCUR & DISSENT:  Justice Paul Anderson opined:  “I join in the opinion of the majority except for Part V.  With respect to Part V, I dissent and in doing so join in Part B of Justice Gilda’s dissent.

Page  (Magnuson  Meyer, and Barry Anderson)

               Concur& Dissent:  Gildea and Dietzen

               Concur& Dissent:  Paul Anderson

               [MURDER]