2006-M-11 State
of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Brian Keith Edwards, Appellant.
DESCRIPTION OF THE CRIME: On of January 28, 2004, Timothy Oliver was shot and killed
in an exchange of gunfire with Edwards in the 2100 block of Elliot Avenue in
South Minneapolis. Edwards was seated in the driver’s seat
of a Dodge Caravan and Oliver was outside the vehicle by the front passenger
window. Witnesses named Edwards as the shooter. Police arrested and questioned
Edwards several hours later.
Edwards initially told the police that he was home asleep at the
time of the shooting. Then he said he was in the back seat of the van and that the
driver, somebody named D.J. was the shooter.
Eventually, Edwards admitted he shot Oliver but told the
police that Oliver shot first.
PRIOR PROCEEDINGS: A
Hennepin County jury found Edwards guilty of first-degree premeditated murder
committed in a drive-by shooting. Judgment of conviction was entered and
Edwards was sentenced to life in prison.
This direct appeal, Edwards argues that he was denied a fair trial
by the admission of opinion testimony on a legal issue and by the submission of
a jury instruction on an aggressor’s right to claim self-defense. We
affirm the conviction and life sentences of Edwards.
THIS DECISION: Justice Gildea joined the majority opinion of Chief Justice
Russell Anderson in upholding the conviction and sentence in this case.
First, Edwards challenged the trial court’s decision to allow the
Minneapolis Police Department’s forensic scientist to offer his expert opinion
about Oliver’s’ intent to shoot victims with his return fire in the target
vehicle based on the lines from long wooden rods placed from bullet holes
in the vehicle surface between where the shooter was standing beside the
vehicle and the site of entry wounds inside the vehicle. The scientist
testified that he did not think Oliver was aiming at people in the van in which
Edwards was shooting.
“We agree with the state’s characterization of the testimony.
In context, it is apparent that the testimony related to the likelihood
of Oliver’s shots hitting the vehicle’s occupants, not to Oliver’s intent when
firing them. The apparent purpose of this testimony was to raise the inference
that because the bullets were at angles and locations in the car that made them
unlikely to hit the occupants, something (like a gunshot wound) interfered with
Oliver’s aim. Although the question was poorly worded, admission of the
testimony was not an abuse of discretion.”
Second, Edwards challenged the trial court’s jury instruction regarding
his self-defense claim. The trial court had used the following
recommended instruction:
“If the defendant began or induced the incident that led to the
necessity of using force in the defendant’s own defense, the right to stand the
defendant’s ground and thus defend himself is not immediately available to
him. Instead, the defendant must first have declined to carry on
the affray and have honestly tried to escape from it, and must clearly and
fairly have informed the adversary of a desire for peace and of abandonment of
the contest. Only after the defendant has done that will the law justify
the defendant in thereafter standing his ground and using force against the
other person.”
The Minnesota Supreme Court held: “Evidence indicating that
Edwards was the initial aggressor included testimony that he was driving around
with a charged semiautomatic handgun, ready to be fired, on his lap; that he
was trying to resolve a drug-territory problem with Oliver; that he gave Oliver
a threatening look and twice initiated contact; that when he put on gloves, the
van owner “knew something was going to go down and it wasn’t right” and
said, “God, please don’t let me get shot. Please don’t do this in my car;” and that
Edwards called Oliver over to the van and shot Oliver before Oliver pulled out
his handgun. This provided a rational basis for the jury to conclude that
Edwards began or induced the incident that led to the necessity of using force
in the defendant’s own defense.”
Edwards' conviction was upheld.
DATE OF DECISION: July 13, 2006
RECORD NUMBER: 2006-115
DESCRIPTION: [MURDER] [DRUGS]
No comments:
Post a Comment