2013-M-238             State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Joel Marvin Munt, Appellant.

MAJORITY:  Appellant Joel Marvin Munt was indicted by a Blue Earth County grand jury of four counts of first-degree murder, one count of second-degree murder, two counts of first-degree aggravated robbery, three counts of second-degree assault, three counts of kidnapping, and three counts of criminal vehicular operation causing injury, arising out of the shooting death of his ex-wife Svetlana and the kidnapping of their three children. 

Because Munt pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of mental illness, the district court bifurcated the trial.  The jury found Munt guilty of all counts and rejected his not-guilty-by-reason-of-mental-illness defense.

On direct appeal, Munt argues that the district court erred by:  (1) declining to remove a prospective juror for cause; (2) making allegedly improper comments to the jury; (3) denying his request to testify on surrebuttal; (4) determining that his 9-year-old daughter was incompetent to testify; and (5) failing to inquire into the nature of his pretrial complaints about counsel appointed to represent him.  Munt also raises various pro se claims.

 Because we conclude that the district court did not commit error and Munt’s pro se claims lack merit, we affirm.

HELD:  1. Because the prospective juror’s answer during voir dire did not demonstrate actual bias, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to remove the juror for cause.

2. The judge’s comments about the schedule of phase two of the bifurcated jury trial, which allowed jurors to plan their personal lives, did not express actual or apparent bias against the appellant, nor did those comments improperly influence the jury’s verdict.

3. No abuse of discretion occurred when the district court excluded surrebuttal evidence, determined that a 9-year-old minor was incompetent to testify, and did not inquire into the effectiveness of appointed counsel.

Affirmed.

DISSENT:  Justices Wright, Page and Paul Anderson opined: “Although I agree with the majority’s resolution of most of the issues in this case, I disagree with its conclusion that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to remove prospective juror B.S. for cause.  B.S. demonstrated actual bias when she expressed a personal belief that was antithetical to Minnesota law on Munt’s mental illness defense, and proper rehabilitation did not occur.  Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

Dietzen (Gildea, Barry Anderson,  and Stras)

               Dissent:  Wright, Page and Paul Anderson

[MURDER]

A11-2315,