A gang-banger's right to a trial open to the public does not guarantee the right to a trial before an anonymous audience filled with gang members.

2015-M-299       State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Kemen Lavatos Taylor, II, Appellant.

MAJORITY:  Kemen Lavatos Taylor, II, was convicted of one count of first-degree murder and

two counts of attempted first-degree murder related to the shooting of three teenagers.  On direct appeal, he alleges eight errors committed by the trial court.  We affirm the convictions.

HELD:  1.  The district court’s requirement that members of the public display photographic identification in order to attend appellant’s trial did not constitute a partial courtroom closure.

2. Assuming without deciding that the district court’s exclusion of certain evidence supporting an alternative motive of accomplice witnesses was erroneous, the error was harmless.

3. Assuming without deciding that the district court’s admission of gang expert testimony identifying appellant as a gang member was erroneous, the error was harmless.

4. The district court’s jury instructions on aiding and abetting liability were not plainly erroneous.  

5. The district court’s failure to give a limiting instruction sua sponte regarding appellant’s prior convictions was not plainly erroneous.

6. The district court did not violate appellant’s right to a speedy trial.

7. The district court’s admission into evidence of a handwritten note seized from appellant’s jail cell was not erroneous.

8. Appellant waived review of whether the admission into evidence of jail call recordings was erroneous, as the briefing was inadequate and there was no obviously prejudicial error.

9. The cumulative effect of the two assumed errors did not deprive appellant of a fair trial.

 Affirmed.

DISSENT:  Justice Page opined: “I respectfully dissent from that part of the court’s decision upholding the trial court’s requirement that members of the public provide photo identification in order to attend Taylor’s trial.  In State v. Brown, we authorized trial courts to lock courtroom doors during the time when the jury is being instructed.  815 N.W.2d 609, 617-18 (Minn. 2012).  We extended our approval of locking the courtroom doors to closing arguments in State v. Silvernail, 831 N.W.2d 594, 600-01 (Minn. 2013).  Today we take another step in our march to limit the public’s access to our courtrooms.  While I fully acknowledge my role in authoring the court’s decisions in both Brown and Silvernail, requiring members of the public to provide photo identification to enter a courtroom during trial is a bridge too far.

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

Dissent:  Page

[MURDER] [CONSTITUTIONAL]

A14-942,