If you won't confess to the police, then you shouldn't confess to your cell-mate!

2015-M-288       State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Gregory Antoine Davis, Appellant.

THE CRIME:  Brianna Jones was shot to death on December 22, 2011, in the lower-level unit of
a Minneapolis duplex that she shared with her boyfriend, D.M.  Several other family
members, including D.M.’s mother, A.M., lived with them.  Davis was A.M.’s boyfriend. 
D.M. discovered Jones’s body when he arrived home from work and saw her lying on the
living-room floor, having been shot once in the left temple.  Clothing, electronics, and
luggage were strewn about the apartment.  Jewelry and other items, including a gun that
belonged to D.M., were missing.

 Investigators questioned Jones’s upstairs neighbors, who told them that, on the
date of the murder, a man who was not D.M. was at the door of Jones’s apartment.  A
few months earlier, D.M. had a confrontation with one of the upstairs neighbors in
Jones’s apartment.  That neighbor told the investigators that the man who was at Jones’s
apartment when the murder occurred was the same man who had been in her apartment during the neighbor’s earlier confrontation with D.M.  D.M. later identified Davis as the
man who had been in the apartment during the confrontation.

 Investigators conducted an initial interview with Davis on January 1, 2012.  Davis
said that, on December 22, he attended several appointments in the morning and in the
early afternoon he went to Target in Brooklyn Center and then drove back to A.M.’s
apartment.  Investigators confirmed that Davis had gone to Target on December 22, but
he was there at a later time than he had suggested to them. 

When investigators searched Davis’s St. Paul apartment on January 3, they found several of the stolen items, including jewelry and D.M.’s gun, which they subsequently determined was the murder weapon.  

 Shortly after the search was completed, Davis was arrested and investigators interviewed him again.  He initially did not respond when asked why he had the murder weapon.  When questioned further, Davis said that he had received a call and was asked to help with a burglary.  Davis characterized the incident in Jones’s apartment as a burglary that went “bad.”  Davis was subsequently indicted for first-degree felony murder.  

 While in custody awaiting trial, Davis discussed the murder with another inmate. 
Davis claimed that, among other things, the burglary was part of a scam to take items
from the apartment temporarily so that the tenants could avoid paying rental fees for the
items.  The inmate subsequently testified at trial about Davis’s explanations for the
burglary and murder and indicated that Davis’s explanations were unconvincing.

Following a jury trial, appellant Gregory Antoine Davis was found guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm, Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd. 1(2) (2014), and first-degree felony murder,1 Minn. Stat. § 609.185(a)(3) (2014). 

The district court adjudged Davis guilty of both offenses and sentenced him to life in prison with the possibility of release. 

THIS APPEAL:  In this direct appeal, Davis argues that he is entitled to a new trial on any of the following four grounds: (1) the district court erroneously instructed the jury on an element of burglary, the predicate offense for the felony-murder charge; (2) the district court erred in its jury instructions by suggesting the order in which the jury should consider the charges; (3) the district court abused its discretion by excluding certain reverse-Spreigl evidence;2 and (4) the district court violated Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.03, subd. 1, when it proceeded with the trial in Davis’s absence.  Because Davis has not established that the district court committed reversible error, we affirm.

HELD:  1.   The district court erred when it incorrectly instructed the jury on the “intent to steal” element of burglary.  However, there is no reasonable likelihood that the error substantially affected the verdict.  

 2.   Although the district court erred by instructing the jury that it did not need to consider lesser offenses if it found appellant guilty of a more serious charge, the error was not plain.

 3.   The district court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded alternative perpetrator evidence because the evidence was irrelevant or hearsay, and, therefore, inadmissible.

 4.   The district court did not err under Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.03 when it proceeded without appellant present during parts of his trial.  

Affirmed.

Wright (Gildea, Page, Anderson, Dietzen, Stras, and Lillehaug)

[MURDER]

A13-1863,