One woman, three men, a temper, a trailer park, a bully, a machete, and a gun are a recipe for death! Rossberg now wants to exclude Hawkinson's dying declaration that identified him as the killer and any evidence of his past beatings and threats to Hawkinson.
2014-M-268 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Keith Richard Rossberg, Appellant.
2014-M-268 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Keith Richard Rossberg, Appellant.
D.T. was dating Rossberg, Hawkinson, and her ex-husband, meeting them at different times at Hawkinson's trailer. Rossberg had beaten Hawkinson repeatedly, once threatening him with a machete. Rossberg then repeatedly shot Hawkinson.
This is appellant Keith Rossberg’s direct appeal from his conviction for first-degree premeditated murder, see Minn. Stat. § 609.185(a)(1) (2012), for killing Devan Hawkinson. Rossberg claims that he is entitled to a new trial because the district court admitted evidence of his past conduct and relationship with Hawkinson. Rossberg argues that the evidence was irrelevant and that it violated the Confrontation Clause because it included testimonial statements that Hawkinson made to the police before his death. Rossberg also raises a variety of other claims in his pro se briefs. Because any error in admitting the evidence was harmless and none of Rossberg’s pro se claims merit relief, we affirm.
This is appellant Keith Rossberg’s direct appeal from his conviction for first-degree premeditated murder, see Minn. Stat. § 609.185(a)(1) (2012), for killing Devan Hawkinson. Rossberg claims that he is entitled to a new trial because the district court admitted evidence of his past conduct and relationship with Hawkinson. Rossberg argues that the evidence was irrelevant and that it violated the Confrontation Clause because it included testimonial statements that Hawkinson made to the police before his death. Rossberg also raises a variety of other claims in his pro se briefs. Because any error in admitting the evidence was harmless and none of Rossberg’s pro se claims merit relief, we affirm.
1. The district court erred by admitting Spreigl evidence without identifying a precise disputed fact to which it was relevant, but the error was harmless.
2. The passage of time did not render evidence of the appellant’s relationship with the victim irrelevant.
3. The appellant failed to show that any error in admitting hearsay evidence of the victim’s statements to the police affected his substantial rights.
4. The appellant’s pro se claims do not entitle him to relief.
Affirmed.
Barry Anderson (Gildea, Page, Dietzen, Stras, Wright, and Lillehaug)
[MURDER]
No comments:
Post a Comment