2013-M-236             State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Donald Warren Hayes, Appellant.

MAJORITY:  Appellant Donald W. Hayes was found guilty of first-degree murder while committing domestic abuse with a past pattern of domestic abuse, and second-degree murder while committing a felony, both stemming from the death of his girlfriend’s son, 13-month-old Robert Azure, Jr. 

In this direct appeal, Hayes challenges his first-degree murder conviction on four grounds, claiming:  (1) the State presented insufficient evidence to prove that he assaulted Robert and caused his death; (2) the State presented insufficient evidence to prove that he had engaged in a past pattern of domestic abuse; (3) the district court should have instructed the jury that a past pattern of domestic abuse requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of at least two prior acts of abuse; and (4) the district court should have instructed the jury that it needed to agree unanimously on which two specific acts of past abuse were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Because we conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence to sustain Hayes’s conviction and that the district court did not err in its jury instructions, we affirm. 

HELD:  1. The State presented sufficient evidence to sustain appellant’s conviction.

2. The district court did not err in its jury instructions regarding past instances of domestic abuse.  

Affirmed.

CONCUR:  Justice Stras opined: “I join Parts III and IV of the court’s opinion.  I concur only in the judgment of the court on Parts I and II, however, because I am concerned that the court’s lack of

specificity on the standard of review will only perpetuate the confusion in our case law on sufficiency of the evidence claims. 

In this case, the record reveals that neither of the disputed elements of Hayes’s criminal conviction was proven by the State through a combination of direct and circumstantial evidence.  Given the state of the record, I agree with the court that the evidence is sufficient to sustain Hayes’s conviction of first-degree murder while committing domestic abuse, but I would apply the “traditional standard” to the “past pattern” element and the “circumstantial evidence standard” to the question of whether Hayes intentionally assaulted Robert in affirming Hayes’s conviction. 

DISSENT:  Justices Paul Anderson and Page opined: “I respectfully dissent.  The confluence of three key factors in this case leads me to conclude that the defendant Donald Warren Hayes did not get a fair trial. 

The three factors are:  (1) the nature, content, and thrust of the medical examiner’s testimony, (2) the State’s willingness to compound the potential harm from the medical examiner’s testimony by employing suggestions, innuendos, and insinuations, and (3) the fact that our standard of review for claims of insufficient evidence once again magnifies the importance of a medical examiner’s testimony and the potential for permanent harm when the State uses such testimony to obtain an otherwise uncertain conviction.

At first glance, none of these three factors standing alone may appear to create a situation sufficient to warrant reversal and a new trial—but, when scrutinized together, they do just that.  The confluence of these factors has created a situation in which it is difficult, if not impossible, for me to conclude that the defendant received a fair trial. 

Moreover, the errors that deprived the defendant of a fair trial were not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt—there simply is not enough evidence in this record to convince me beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not have a significant impact on the jury’s verdict of guilty.  Therefore, I dissent.  I would reverse and remand for a new trial.

Barry Anderson (Gildea and Dietzen)

               Concur:  Stras

               Dissent:  Paul Anderson andPage

               Took no part:  Wright

[MURDER]

A11-1665,