2012-M-217           State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Javaris Eugene Milton, Appellant.

On February 1, 2011, the Hennepin County District Court convicted Javaris Eugene Milton of one count of first-degree felony murder and one count of attempted first-degree felony murder.  The court then sentenced Milton to: (1) life imprisonment with the possibility of parole for the murder of Dontae Johnson, and (2) a concurrent sentence of 220 months for the attempted murder of C.W. 

On appeal, Milton makes the following three arguments: (1) the district court erred by not suppressing shell casings seized from the back stairway of Milton’s multifamily residence, (2) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct when it referenced shell casings found in Milton’s truck, and (3) the district court erred when it failed to give an accomplice liability instruction.  Milton asserts that because of the court’s errors and the State’s misconduct, we must reverse his convictions and grant a new trial. 

We affirm Milton’s convictions.

HELD:  First, district court did not err when it admitted into evidence shell casings seized by the

police from the back of defendant’s multifamily residence, even though the seizure was warrantless, because the area where the shell casings were seized was not curtilage and the incriminating nature of the shell casings was immediately apparent to the police. State did not commit prosecutorial misconduct when the State’s opening statement to the jury complied with an agreement between the parties and the district court as to the admissibility of certain evidence, and the record does not indicate that the State was responsible for any improper redaction of a separate statement that the State published to the jury.

Second, district court erred when it failed to instruct the jury that the jury could not find the defendant guilty of aiding and abetting unless the jury found that the defendant knew his alleged accomplices planned to commit a crime and that the defendant intended to aid in the commission of that crime; but, the district court’s error did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights because there was not a reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict. 

Affirmed.

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

[MURDER]