2013-M-245           State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Aaron Joseph Morrow, Appellant.

Appellant Aaron Morrow appeals his convictions that arise out of an incident in which he repeatedly fired a semiautomatic AK-47 rifle at Joseph Rivera and two of Rivera’s friends.  A Ramsey County grand jury indicted him with nine counts, including one count of first-degree premeditated murder and two counts of attempted first-degree premeditated murder. 

Following a jury trial, Morrow was found guilty as charged.  The district court sentenced Morrow to life in prison without the possibility of release for the first-degree premeditated murder conviction and to two consecutive 180-month sentences for the convictions of attempted first-degree premeditated murder. 

On direct appeal, Morrow claims that the district court erred when it:  (1) denied his pretrial motion to

dismiss the indictment; (2) admitted his taped statement to police; (3) admitted a photograph of Rivera as a child; (4) denied his motion for a mistrial; and (5) denied his request for surrebuttal closing argument.  He also raises several other claims in his pro se brief.  We affirm.

HELD:  1.  The district court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to dismiss the indictment because a defendant does not have a right to testify before the grand jury and the alleged misconduct by the State did not substantially influence the grand jury’s decision to indict. 

2.   The district court did not err in admitting into evidence appellant’s statement to investigators because the statement was voluntary.

3. The district court did not err in admitting into evidence a spark of life photograph because the State did not use the photograph to invoke undue sympathy for the victim or inflame the jury’s passions.  

4. The district court did not err by denying appellant’s motion for a mistrial because the prosecutor did not intentionally elicit testimony by a police investigator that appellant was truant and once swore at a high school teacher and the elicited testimony did not affect the jury’s verdict. 

5. Even if the district court erred in denying appellant’s request for surrebuttal closing argument, the error was harmless. 

6. The issues raised in appellant’s pro se brief lack merit. 

Affirmed.

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

               Took no part:  Wright and Lillehaug

[MURDER]

A12-79,