Call Uber when your 80-year-old father wants a ride to his intended murder scene!

2016-M-317         State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Timothy John Huber, Appellant.

Here, the Supreme Court ordered a new trial for a man convicted of second-degree murder because of faulty jury instructions in a case where the defendant’s father was convicted of second-degree murder of their neighbor.

THE FACTS:  There was a family feud between the Hubers and the Larsons, whose farms abutted near Willmar.  On October 8, 2011, Huber went onto the Larson farm to do chores which he had been hired to do by Larson’s absent father.  The night before, the Larson son (Dennis) allegedly told Huber that Dennis would kill Huber or his father if they ever returned to the Larson land.

While Huber worked in the barn, his 80-year-old father waited in the car with a rifle.  Dennis Larson returned to the farm and assaulted the father.  The father shot and killed Dennis Larson.  The Huber father pled guilty to second-degree murder.

Under an accomplice-liability theory, Huber was indicted for first-degree premeditated murder, second-degree intentional murder, and second-degree felony murder. 

The jury found Huber guilty of second-degree intentional murder and second-degree felony murder, but acquitted him of first-degree murder. The district court sentenced Huber to 306 months in prison for second-degree intentional murder.

A divided court of appeals panel affirmed, concluding that the accomplice-liability instructions given to the jury were plainly erroneous but that the error did not affect Huber's substantial rights.

THE DECISION:  The unanimous Supreme Court held that the jury instructions on accomplice liability were plainly erroneous because they not only failed to explain the meaning of intentionally aiding another in the commission of a crime, but they also failed to require that the aiding and abetting be intentional when stating the elements of the offense.

The erroneous jury instructions allowed the jury to convict the appellant for his mere presence near the commission of the crime, and therefore affected the appellant's substantial rights. A new trial is required to protect the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of the judicial proceedings. Reversed and remanded.

Dietzen (Gildea, Anderson, Stras, and Lillehaug)

               Took No Part:  Hudson and Chutich.

               [CRIME] [MURDER] [SECOND-DEGREE] [REVERSE]

Date: April 06, 2016