Fancy stories can change murder-two into murder-one!

2015-M-291       State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Roger Earl Holland, Appellant.

[Husband convicted of two homicides for pushing his pregnant wife down the stairs resulting in two deaths]

THE CRIME:  On March 7, 2013, Apple Valley police responded to a report of a pregnant
woman in cardiac arrest.  The caller, appellant Roger Earl Holland, told dispatch that the
woman was unconscious, not breathing, and cold.  Police were dispatched to an apartment and arrived at approximately 10 a.m.  Police met Holland, who yelled, “She is in here, please help.”  Police found Margorie Holland (“Margorie”) lying on her back at the bottom of a set of stairs inside the apartment.  

Officers noticed several red scratches on the left side of Holland’s face and neck.  In statements to police, Holland said that Margorie had been suffering from abdominal cramps that morning and that he had rubbed her back to relieve the pain.  Holland claimed that Margorie had sat in front of him and that during a cramping episode, she had accidentally scratched him.  He said Margorie then told him she was hungry and he went to Taco Bell to get her food.  On his way, he said, he received a text message from Margorie asking for McDonald’s instead, so Holland said he went to McDonald’s. 

Holland stated that when he returned home, he found Margorie face down on the floor, wrapped in a blanket, and nonresponsive.  Holland said he rolled her over and started CPR before calling 911.
Police undertook resuscitation efforts until paramedics arrived.  Police noticed that Margorie’s hands were darker in color than the rest of her body, and that she had dried blood in both nostrils and on her upper lip and face. 

Margorie’s pants were cut away as part of the life-saving efforts, and police noticed dark bruises on both knees and an abrasion on Margorie’s left knee.  Margorie also had abrasions that appeared to be
friction burns on both elbows and a bruise and scratch on one arm.  Officers noticed small reddish-purple dots on Margorie’s face that appeared to be petechiae.
  
Officer Valerie Holes was one of the first police officers to arrive at the Hollands’ apartment.  She asked Holland about the text messages he said that he had received from Margorie so that she could determine how long Margorie had been unresponsive.  As Holland tried to show Officer Holes the messages, his hand was shaking so badly that Officer Holes could not read the display on the phone.  Officer Holes asked to see Holland’s phone, and Holland gave his phone to the officer.  Officer Holes testified that she did not intend to seize Holland’s phone at that time but was trying to gain information that might be helpful for the paramedics.  In looking at Holland’s phone, Officer Holes
saw that Margorie and Holland’s phones had exchanged text messages that morning that were consistent with Holland’s statements.  Officer Holes told the other officers and paramedics that the last text message in the conversation was sent at 9:38 a.m.

Margorie was transported by ambulance to Fairview Ridges Hospital.  After attempting life-saving measures, the emergency room doctor pronounced Margorie dead.  Margorie’s death also caused the death of her unborn child.  As part of the examination of Margorie’s body, the doctor noticed a faint abrasion or irritation on the front part of Margorie’s neck, but the doctor did not see any obvious head injuries.

The medical examiner concluded that Margorie’s manner of death was homicide, and the cause was strangulation.  The medical examiner concluded that Margorie’s injuries, including fractures to the horns of the thyroid cartilage in her neck and the petechiae on her face, were not consistent with a fall down the stairs.

THIS APPEAL:  Appellant Roger Earl Holland was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder for the deaths of Margorie Holland and her unborn child.1  On appeal, Holland raises three arguments. 

First, Holland argues that the district court erred in admitting evidence from his cell phone, which he contends police illegally seized.  Second, Holland argues that the district court erred in admitting evidence obtained from the execution of numerous search warrants, because the warrant applications lacked probable cause.  Third, Holland argues that the district court improperly dismissed a juror for cause. 

Because we conclude that police properly seized the cell phone under the plain-view exception, the search warrants were supported by probable cause, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the juror, we affirm Holland’s conviction.

HELD: 1. Because it was immediately apparent to police who saw text messages on appellant’s cell phone that the text messages might provide evidence of a crime, the district court did not err in concluding that police properly seized appellant’s phone pursuant to the plain-view exception.

 2. Because the search warrants were supported by probable cause, the district court did not err in denying appellant’s motions to suppress evidence obtained from execution of the warrants.

 3. Because the district court examined the juror twice on the record, the juror gave inconsistent testimony in response to questions posed during voir dire, and the juror told court staff that she felt intimidated by the judge, it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to strike the juror for cause without examining the juror a third time.  

 Affirmed.

[MURDER] [LIFE] [GILDEA]

A14-427,