2013-M-240             State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Tracy Alan Zornes, Appellant.

Tracy Alan Zornes was convicted of the first-degree premeditated murders of Megan Londo and John Cadotte, arson for setting a fire that destroyed the apartment building where Londo and Cadotte were murdered, and theft of Cadotte’s car. 

On direct appeal, Zornes argues that the district court committed four reversible errors.  First, Zornes argues that the court’s removal of two persons from the courtroom during voir dire violated his right to a public trial under the United States and Minnesota Constitutions.  Second, he argues that the court violated his Fourth Amendment rights when it admitted a statement Zornes made to the police that he claims was made during an unlawful search.  Third, Zornes argues that the court abused its discretion when it admitted into evidence several items that were found when Zornes was arrested.  Finally, Zornes argues that the court abused its discretion when it ruled that, if he chose to testify at trial, the State could attempt to impeach him using three prior felony convictions. 

Because we conclude that none of the alleged errors requires reversal, we affirm.

HELD:  1.  The district court did not abuse its discretion when it sequestered a witness during

voir dire because the district court has substantial discretion to sequester witnesses during

the trial process, and voir dire is part of the trial process, Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (2010).   

2.  The removal of a person from the courtroom was too trivial under the factors outlined in State v. Lindsey, 632 N.W.2d 652 (Minn. 2001), to implicate the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights.

3.  Absent an exception, the police must have a warrant before conducting searches under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution; therefore, when the district court correctly concluded that no exception applied in this case, the court did not err when it concluded that the police’s warrantless search for DNA evidence on the defendant was unlawful.

4.  Any error in the district court’s admission of the defendant’s disputed statement was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

5.  The admission of physical evidence that is both sufficiently connected to a defendant and to the scene of the alleged crime generally falls within a district court’s discretion; therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted several items found with the defendant that were sufficiently connected to both the defendant and the crime scene.

6.  A district court must weigh the five factors that we outlined in State v. Jones, 271 N.W.2d 534 (Minn. 1978), to determine whether a defendant’s prior conviction is more probative than prejudicial and when the court properly weighed the Jones factors it did not abuse its discretion by concluding that the defendant’s three prior felony convictions could be admitted for impeachment purposes.

Affirmed.

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

[MURDER]

A12-463,