Nothing good happens at a strip party after 6:00 in the morning.

2016-M-309         Jedidiah Dean Troxel, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent.

THE CRIME:  In the early morning hours of August 26,2012, victim T.K. attended a strip party near Thief River Falls.  During a strip game, T.K. removed her shirt and bra, and rubbed the legs of Troxel and the host B.M.  T.K. left the party shortly before 6:00 a.m. and Troxel said that T.K. said she wanted to perform oral sex on him.  Troxel said that he left at 6:00 a.m.

A witness who was experienced in doing body work on cars said he saw a Mitsubishi Eclipse next to the Smiley Bridge at 7:00 a.m.  Troxel’s car was a Mitsubishi Eclipse.

At noon, a fisherman found T.K.’s body beneath the Smiley Bridge.  She had been savagely beaten and bled to death.  DNA found from semen in her vagina matched Troxel, who later denied he had participated in intercourse with T.K.  Blood samples on the driver door and gear shift of Troxel’s car matched the DNA of T.K.

In 2013, a Pennington County jury found appellant Jedidiah Dean Troxel guilty of three counts of first-degree murder while committing first-degree criminal sexual conduct.  Following his conviction, the district court sentenced Troxel to life in prison without the possibility of release.

Troxel did not pursue a direct appeal to the Supreme Court.  Instead, he filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that he was entitled to relief based on three alleged errors committed by the district court:  1) the exclusion of alternative-perpetrator evidence; 2) the denial of a lesser-included-offense instruction on second-degree intentional murder; and 3) the denial of Troxel’s motion to remove the trial judge for an appearance of partiality. The post-conviction court denied relief on all grounds. 

MAJORITY:  The Majority upheld the post-conviction-court’s affirmance of Troxel’s conviction on all three claims. 

1.      The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant’s motion to introduce alternative-perpetrator evidence.

2.      The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant’s request for a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of second-degree intentional murder.

3.      The presiding judge at appellant’s trial was not disqualified for an appearance of partiality.

DISSENT:  The Dissent opined that the district court judge should not have presided over this first-degree murder case brought by the State of Minnesota at the time when he was actively negotiating to become a county attorney whose duties included prosecuting on behalf of the State. That he did so created an appearance that he lacked impartiality. To maintain public confidence in Minnesota’s judiciary, I would reverse and remand for a new trial.

               Wright (Dietzen, Stras, and Hudson)

Dissent:  Lillehaug, Gildea, and Anderson

[CRIME] [MURDER] [FIRST-DEGREE] [SEX] [DISSENT]

Date: February 17, 2016