2012-M-214       State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Steven Bernard Radke, Appellant.

Appellant Steven Bernard Radke was arrested and charged with first-degree premeditated murder for causing the June 20, 2007, death of Darrell Buesgens.  At trial, Radke admitted shooting Buesgens, but claimed that he did so in self-defense and without premeditation. 

The jury, rejecting Radke’s self-defense claim, found Radke guilty of first-degree premeditated murder, and the district court sentenced Radke to life in prison without the possibility of release.  Radke thereafter filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied.

 In this consolidated direct appeal and appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief, Radke argues that:  (1) his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to introduce evidence of Buesgens’ reputation for violence and past acts of violence; (2) the State committed reversible error when it withheld exculpatory evidence; (3) the jury instructions impermissibly shifted the burden to Radke to prove self-defense; (4) the district court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on heat-of-passion manslaughter; (5) the State improperly used a suppressed statement by Radke, admitted solely for purposes of impeachment, as substantive evidence of guilt; (6) the State committed misconduct during closing argument; and (7) the cumulative effect of the above errors denied Radke a fair trial.

 Because we conclude that each of these claims is either without merit or did not result in prejudice to Radke, we affirm both Radke’s conviction and the post-conviction court’s denial of post-conviction relief.

HELD:  First, trial counsel’s failure to introduce evidence related to the deceased victim’s reputation and past acts of violence did not result in prejudice to appellant because there is no reasonable probability that, but for trial counsel’s alleged errors, the outcome of appellant’s trial would have been different.

Second, the State’s failure to disclose police reports involving the victim did not prejudice appellant because the evidence in question would not have been admissible in support of appellant’s claim of self-defense.

Third, the jury instructions on self-defense did not shift the burden of proof to appellant.

Fourth, the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s request to instruct the jury on heat-of-passion manslaughter.

Fifth, the State’s substantive use of a suppressed interview statement did not affect appellant’s substantial rights.

Sixth, the State’s misconduct during closing argument, if any, did not rise to the level of plain error.

 Affirmed.

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

[MURDER]