2013-M-239             State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jeffrey Allen Silvernail, Appellant.

MAJORITY:  A jury found appellant Jeffrey Silvernail guilty of first-degree premeditated murder and second-degree intentional murder for the shooting death of Lori Roberts.  The district court convicted Silvernail of first-degree premeditated murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment without the possibility of release. 

On appeal, Silvernail challenges his conviction on two grounds.  First, he claims that the record contains insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction of first-degree premeditated murder because the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt at trial that he murdered Roberts.  Second, he argues that the court committed reversible error by locking the courtroom doors before the State began its closing argument, which violated the public trial guarantees of the United States and Minnesota Constitutions. 

We affirm Silvernail’s conviction.

HELD:  1. The record contains sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict that appellant is guilty of first-degree premeditated murder.

2. The district court’s decision to lock the courtroom doors before the State began its closing argument did not violate appellant’s right to a public trial.

 Affirmed.

CONCUR:  Justices Stras and Dietzen opined: “Our case law on sufficiency of the evidence is confusing and ambiguous in its application.  I write separately because this case provides us with the opportunity to provide needed clarification to the standard for reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence when the State presents a combination of direct and circumstantial evidence in support of a criminal conviction. 

Rather than addressing that important and unsettled question, however, the court instead embarks on a fanciful voyage in which it assumes without deciding that our “circumstantial evidence standard” applies to the sufficiency of the direct evidence presented by the State—an approach that only amplifies the confusion in our case law.  The court’s approach does not provide any guidance regarding how to assess the sufficiency of the evidence in mixed evidence cases—perhaps the most common category of cases that we review.  I therefore write separately to do what the court will not: articulate a standard for evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence when the State presents a combination of direct and circumstantial evidence in support of a criminal conviction.

DISSENT:  Justice Paul Anderson opined: “I respectfully dissent.  I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the record contains sufficient evidence to sustain appellant Jeffrey Silvernail’s conviction.  But I do not agree with the majority’s conclusion that the district court’s sua sponte act of locking the courtroom doors before the State’s closing argument was “too trivial” to violate Silvernail’s constitutional right to a public trial.  On this issue, I would conclude that the district court’s decision to close the courtroom constitutes reversible error and I would remand for a new trial.

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

               Concur:  Stras and Dietzen

               Dissent:  Paul Anderson

[MURDER]

A12-21,