You should "unfriend" someone on Facebook if they have murder on their mind!

2016-M-338       State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Marlon Rashaad Robertson.

BACKGROUND:  The shooting at issue happened on June 24, 2013 but the State’s theory at trial was thatthe shooting was related to a robbery that occurred in April 2013.

Kevin Braziel’s friend, M.S., was the victim of that robbery. M.S. was at a party at the home of Robertson’s girlfriend. During the party, three of Robertson’s gang associates robbed M.S. at gunpoint.

M.S. identified the robbers as M.B., K.W., and W.J. Robertson was also present during the robbery, though M.S. stated that Robertson “wasn’t really an active participant.”

A few days after the robbery, Robertson sent M.S. a Facebook message stating, “It’s crazy how y[o]u turn[ed] on me.” M.S. responded by accusing Robertson of setting up the robbery and noting that Robertson did not come to his aid when the other individuals robbed and threatened to kill him. Robertson later sent a series of Facebook messages to an unidentified friend, claiming that M.S. admitted to being a snitch, “ha[d] police cards in his pockets,” and was responsible for the incarceration of one of Robertson’s friends.

Two months later, on June 24, 2013, Braziel was shot and killed while talking to M.S. and J.H. in a North Minneapolis parking lot.  The State contended that Robertson’s intended target was M.S., a “known prosecution witness” in connection with the April robbery. Rather than shooting M.S., however, Robertson shot Braziel.

The jury found Robertson guilty on all eight counts charged, including first-degree premeditated murder, Minn. Stat. § 609.185(a)(1).6 Robertson was convicted of five counts and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of release.

HELD:  The Supreme Court upheld Robertson’s conviction and sentence on this direct appeal.

First, the State presented sufficient evidence to sustain appellant's convictions.

Second, the district court did not commit reversible error by disallowing certain defense evidence offered at trial.

Third, Appellant was not denied his constitutional right to the effective assistance of trial counsel.

Fourth, Appellant, who was not a juvenile at the time the crime was committed, was not entitled to a sentencing hearing under Miller.

Finally, Appellant's pro se claims lack merit.

Gildea (Anderson, Dietzen, Stras, Lillehaug, Hudson, and Chutich)

Took No Part:  McKeig.

[CRIME] [MURDER] [PREMEDITATED] [FIRST-DEGREE] [GANG]

Date: September 14, 2016