2010-M-168             State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Michael John Anderson, Appellant.

MAJORITY:  A Scott County jury found appellant Michael Anderson guilty of first-degree premeditated murder, second-degree intentional murder, and second-degree manslaughter—culpable negligence, for the shooting death of Katherine Olson on October 25, 2007.  The district court sentenced Anderson to life in prison without possibility of release, and Anderson filed a direct appeal.  We affirm.

On direct appeal, Anderson argues that (1) he did not waive his Miranda rights so his statement to the police should have been suppressed; (2) the district court abused its discretion and denied him a fair trial when it denied his request to present expert psychiatric testimony on Asperger’s and its effects on him; (3) the court abused its discretion by denying Anderson’s proposed jury instructions; and (4) the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for first-degree premeditated murder.

First, given the totality of the circumstances, we hold that the district court did not err in concluding that Anderson knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights.

Second, we agree with the district court that whatever probative value the expert testimony would have had, it was substantially outweighed by the danger of confusing the jury by causing them to speculate on how Asperger’s may affect Anderson.  We also conclude that Anderson’s right to a fair trial was not violated by the district court’s ruling.

Third, a full examination of the judge’s actual jury instructions andAnderson’s  requested instructions accurately stated the law and sufficiently indicated to the jury that Anderson must have formed an intent to kill Olson and then premeditated.  Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to give Anderson’s requested instruction.

Fourth, the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.  Accordingly, there was sufficient evidence to convict Anderson of first-degree premeditated murder.

CONCUR:  Justice s Paul Anderson andPage opined:  “I agree with our court’s decision to affirm the district court but write separately to express my concern with the wording of the pattern jury instruction on premeditation.

When addressing the language in the instruction, we have held, as we do here, that the instruction “accurately states the law.”  But when doing so, we have consistently stated that “some appreciable time must pass” before there can be premeditation.  The more I have contemplated the wording of CRIMJIG 11.02, the more concerned I have become that even though the instruction may be an accurate statement of the law, it may also be misleading and confusing because the word “any” as used in the instruction can have different meanings.

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

               Concur:  Paul Anderson and Page

               Took no part:  Stras

               [MURDER]