2012-M-196      State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Danny Ortega, Sr., Appellant.

Following a jury trial, appellant Danny Ortega, Sr. (“Ortega”) was convicted of aiding and abetting first-degree premeditated murder, Minn. Stat. §§ 609.185(a)(1), 609.05, subd. 1 (2010), in the stabbing death of Troy Ulrich.  Ortega challenges his conviction on appeal, arguing that (1) the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statements to investigators, and (2) the district court abused its discretion when it allowed the prosecutor to ask prospective jurors whether they believed there was anything more valuable than human life.   Ortega also filed a pro se supplemental brief alleging numerous errors, including a claim that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of premeditated murder.  We affirm Ortega’s conviction.

First, the district court did not err when it admitted appellant’s statements to investigators because, after initially requesting counsel, appellant reinitiated questioning with the investigators and then validly waived his Miranda rights.

Second, the district court did not err when it admitted appellant’s statements to investigators because, after appellant made an equivocal request for counsel, investigators complied with the “stop and clarify” rule by asking appellant a narrow question designed to clarify the scope of appellant’s request for counsel.  

Third, any alleged error in the prosecutor’s questioning of jurors during voir dire did not result in prejudice to the appellant. 

Fourth, appellant’s pro se arguments are without merit.  c Affirmed.

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

[MURDER]