Don't bury your girlfriend's body right next to your backyard!

2015-M-287           State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Mo Savoy Hicks, Appellant.

THE CRIME:  On August 22, 2007, Judy Rush’s sister reported that Rush was missing.  Police
went to Rush’s apartment to check on her.  They entered the apartment and found blood stains in the living room, hallway, and bedroom.  The next day, the police executed a search warrant at the apartment.  The officers saw what appeared to be blood on the rug, floor, mattress, and bedroom walls.  On August 28, 2007, the Anoka County Medical Examiner determined that Rush could not have survived after she lost the volume of blood discovered in her apartment.  In late July 2008, the court declared Rush legally dead.

At the time of Rush’s disappearance, Rush and Hicks were friends.  The police spoke to Hicks about Rush on several occasions.  He gave conflicting stories about being with Rush on the day police believed she was murdered.  

 Nearly 3 years after Rush’s disappearance, human remains were discovered buried in a shallow grave in a park in Brooklyn Park.  DNA analysis identified the remains as Rush.  After examining her skeletal remains, a medical examiner determined that Rush had died as the result of a blunt force cranial injury.

 Respondent State of Minnesota charged Hicks with second-degree intentional murder, and second-degree unintentional murder.  Hicks waived his right to a jury trial.  He also waived his right to counsel and represented himself at trial.

 During the court trial, the State presented physical evidence connecting Hicks to Rush’s murder.  In addition, two people with whom Hicks had been incarcerated at the Anoka County Jail testified that Hicks told them that he had hit Rush on the head with a “steel” or a hammer and then buried er near a place where Hicks used to live.  The district court found Hicks guilty of second-degree unintentional murder but acquitted him of second-degree intentional murder.

MAJORITY:  This case presents the question of whether the district court may use the defendant’s concealment of the victim’s body as an aggravating factor to justify an upward durational departure from the presumptive sentence for a homicide offense.  Appellant Mo Savoy Hicks was convicted of second-degree unintentional murder for the death of Judy Rush.  After Hicks waived his right to a sentencing jury, the district court imposed a 420-month sentence, which is an upward durational departure of 168 months. The court concluded that disposal and concealment of the victim’s body constituted particular cruelty.  The court of appeals affirmed Hicks’s sentence. 

Because concealment of a murder victim’s body is an aggravating factor on which a district court may base an upward departure, we affirm the court of appeals.

HELD:  The district court may use the defendant’s concealment of the victim’s body as an aggravating factor to justify an upward durational departure from the presumptive sentence for homicide offenses.

 Affirmed.

DISSENT:  Justices Wright and Page opined: ““Hard cases should not be allowed to make bad law.”  Young v. City of Mankato, 97 Minn. 4, 8, 105 N.W. 969, 971 (1905) (internal quotation marks omitted).  The anguish experienced by the Rush family is heartbreaking and, therefore, the temptation to adopt a rule of law that might provide some solace is powerful.  Nevertheless, we must not sacrifice important legal principles in the pursuit of such a rule.  By affirming the district court’s departure from the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines, the court not only undermines the principles of uniformity, proportionality, rationality, and predictability that form the foundation of our sentencing law, the court also fails to abide by the doctrine of stare decisis.  For these reasons, I conclude that the law compels a sentence no greater than the upper limit of the presumptive guideline range.  Therefore, I respectfully

dissent.

Dietzen (Gildea, Anderson, Stras, and Lillehaug)

               Dissent:  Wright and Page

[MURDER]

A12-1107,