2010-M-155             State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Robert Vincent Larson, Appellant.

MAJORITY:  On April 21, 2004, Robert Larson was indicted for first-degree murder, aiding and abetting first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and aiding and abetting second-degree murder for his role in the death of Thomas John Cady, Jr.  Robert Larson and his sister, Jamie Larson, were both indicted for their involvement in the killing, and they were tried separately.  The jury found Larson guilty of first-degree murder and he received a mandatory life sentence.  Larson filed a direct appeal, but his direct appeal was stayed pending post-conviction proceedings.  After the district court denied Larson’s petition for post-conviction relief, Larson’s direct appeal was reinstated.  

First, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant a continuance so that additional DNA testing could be completed because such testing was unlikely to materially affect the outcome of the trial. The

Second,  the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting into evidence  the fact that several other suspects voluntarily submitted to DNA testing because Larson opened the door for such testimony by questioning various witnesses on whether the State had taken a DNA sample and implying that the State had not been thorough in its investigation of alternative perpetrators.

Third, the district court erred in ruling that evidence of Larson’s refusal to voluntarily submit to DNA testing was admissible.  But this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Fourth, the district court’s rulings regarding alternative perpetrator evidence did not prevent Larson from presenting a complete defense because the evidence Larson now argues should have been admitted either was admitted or did not have an inherent tendency to connect the alternative party to the crime.

Fifth, any error in declining to order the police to authenticate transcripts Larson created from police interviews with witnesses was harmless because Larson had ample opportunity to impeach the State’s witnesses using the tape recordings of the interviews and the police reports prepared from the interviews.

Sixth, because the co-conspirator statements admitted at Larson’s trial arose in discussions among friends and acquaintances, those statements were non-testimonial and their introduction did not violate Larson’s Confrontation Clause rights.

 Affirmed.

CONCUR:  Justices Page and Paul Anderson opined:  “I concur in the result, but I write separately to note my disagreement with the court’s conclusion that the admission of evidence that Andujar, J.H., and C.F. voluntarily gave DNA samples was not error.  On the unique facts of this case, that evidence was more prejudicial than probative and should have been excluded.

Although we have said that by introducing alternative-perpetrator evidence a defendant opens the door for the prosecutor to present testimony exculpating the alleged alternative perpetrators, including evidence that the alleged alternative perpetrators voluntarily provided DNA that exculpated them, we specifically noted that we had reservations about the prosecutor’s emphasis on the fact that the DNA samples were voluntarily produced rather than simply stating that such samples had been produced and

exculpated the suspects.

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

               Concur:  Page and Paul Anderson

               Took no part:  Stras

               [MURDER]