2012-203           State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jerrell Michael Brown, Appellant.

MAJORITY:  In March 2010 Jerrell Michael Brown was convicted of aiding and abetting first-degree murder for the benefit of a gang in connection with the shooting death of Darius Ormond Miller, which occurred on August 29, 2008. 

On appeal, Brown challenges his conviction, claiming that the trial court violated his right to a public trial and erred in its evidentiary rulings and jury instructions.  Brown also claims the prosecutor violated his right to a fair trial by failing to disclose impeachment evidence.  Because the facts of this case do not implicate the right to a public trial, the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or its jury instructions, and the undisclosed impeachment evidence was not material, we affirm Brown’s conviction.

HELD:  First, locking the courtroom doors during jury instructions did not implicate appellant’s right to a public trial when the trial court announced that all spectators were welcome to stay and the jury instructions did not comprise a proportionately significant portion of trial. 

Second, the trial court did not err when it admitted evidence of appellant’s participation in a previous reckless-discharge-of-a-firearm incident.

Third, the trial court did not err when it admitted expert gang testimony regarding the general workings and activities of a gang.

Fourth, the trial court did not err when it instructed the jury on aiding and abetting because, when viewed as a whole, the jury instructions did not relieve the State of its burden of proof.

Fifth, the prosecutor’s failure to disclose impeaching evidence did not warrant a

new trial because the impeaching evidence was not material.

DISSENT:  Justices Meyer and Paul Anderson opined: “I respectfully dissent.  I believe that the trial court’s decision to close and lock the courtroom doors during jury instructions contravened the purposes of the public trial guarantee, requiring the district court to conduct an analysis pursuant to Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 45 (1984).  Because the trial court failed to articulate any reason to justify locking the doors for a portion of the trial under the Waller factors, I would

remand the case to the post-conviction court for an evidentiary hearing and findings in accordance with State v. Fageroos, 531 N.W.2d 199, 203 (Minn. 1995).  In reaching this conclusion, I first look to the standard for determining whether a courtroom closure has occurred, and then apply that standard to the facts in this case.

Page (Gildea, Barry Anderson, Dietzen and Stras)

            Dissent:  Meyer and Paul Anderson

[MURDER]