If you must do a drive-by shooting, don't do it in front of a street full of witnesses who know you and your truck very well.

2016-M-341      Lincoln Lamar Caldwell, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota.

BACKGROUND:  In June 2006, 18-year-old Brian Cole died from injuries he sustained during a drive-by shooting near the corner of Eighth Avenue and Penn Avenue in North Minneapolis. Cole was the unintended victim of a gunshot fired through the open window of an SUV. After conducting an investigation, police officers determined that Cole was standing near members of the One-Nine gang when he was shot. Although Cole was not a member of a gang, the One-Nine gang was engaged in an ongoing rivalry with the LL gang at the time. Witnesses identified Caldwell, who was a member of the LL gang, as the driver of the SUV from which the gunshot originated. Witnesses identified the shooter as another member of the LL gang. Relying on this and other evidence, the State prosecuted Caldwell and the shooter for Cole’s murder.

The jury found Caldwell guilty of all six counts of murder that were charged in the indictment. In June 2008, the district court convicted him of first-degree murder for the benefit of a gang—the most serious offense—and sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of release.

In September, 2008, Caldwell filed a direct appeal of his conviction. The Supreme Court stayed his direct appeal while Caldwell filed his first two petitions for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court denied both of Caldwell’s post-conviction petitions, and Caldwell appealed.

In August, 2011, The Supreme Court consolidated Caldwell’s three appeals and affirmed Caldwell’s conviction and the denial of both petitions for post-conviction relief.

In May 2012, Caldwell filed his third petition for post-conviction relief, in which he alleged that Harrison, Brooks, and Turnage presented false testimony at his trial.

In October, 2012, the post-conviction court denied Caldwell’s petition without holding an evidentiary hearing. The post-conviction court was not reasonably well satisfied that the trial testimony of Brooks and Harris was false, nor was it reasonably well satisfied that Turnage’s testimony, even if it were false, might have affected the jury’s verdict.

In 2014, the Supreme Court determined that the post-conviction court erred when it summarily denied Caldwell’s petition.  The Supreme Court concluded that Caldwell alleged facts that, if proven, would entitle him to relief.  The Supreme Court remanded the case to the post-conviction court for an evidentiary hearing to determine the credibility of the recantations.

In December ,2014, the post-conviction court began the evidentiary hearing.  The first defense witness Brooks could not be found.   Counsel questioned the second defense witness Turnage, who recanted his trial testimony, and testified he had not been paid to recant and had not been intimidated in prison to recant.  Before the State could complete its cross-examination of Turnage, Turnage refused to answer the State’s questions.  The next day, Turnage continued his refusal.   The State provided evidence that Turnage had been paid $3,000 to recant and he had been intimidated in prison by three individuals to recant.

When the post-conviction hearing continued in March, 2015, Brooks was still unavailable.  Turnage still refused to answer the State’s questions.  The post-conviction court excluded Turnage’s testimony. 

In June, 2015, the post-conviction hearing continued.  Brooks was still unavailable.  The third defense witness Harrison recanted. 

In July, the post-conviction court noted that the basis of Caldwell’s third post-conviction appeal was a claim that three trial witnesses had recanted their trial testimony.  The post-conviction court noted that Brooks had not appeared over the seven months, Harrison’s appellate testimony was not credible, and that Turnage’s appellate testimony had been interrupted before the State could complete its cross-examination could be completed and before the State presented allegations that Turnage had been both bribed and intimidated by three persons in prison to prompt his recantation. The post=conviction court struck Turnage’s appellate testimony and denied Caldwell’s third post-conviction appeal.

HELD: The Supreme Court upheld Caldwell’s conviction and sentence.

First, the Supreme Court held that neither the post-conviction court nor the State substantially interfered with a recanting witness's decision to testify at an evidentiary hearing.

Second, the Supreme Court held that, where a recanting witness testified before invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, the post-conviction court did not abuse its discretion by striking that testimony because the State did not have an opportunity to complete its cross-examination.

Hudson (Gildea, Anderson, Stras, and Lillehaug)

Took No Part:  Chutich, and McKeig.

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

Date: October 19, 2016