2007-M-33
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Marvin Haynes, Jr., Appellant.
DESCRIPTION OF CRIME: On May 16, 2004, Haynes attempted to rob Jerry’s Flower
Shop in Minneapolis. He pointed a gun at employee C.M. and demanded
money. C.M.’s brother, S.H., distracted Haynes and C.M. fled out the back
door. She heard two shots and her brother died.
At a neighbor’s house, C.M. called 9-1-1 and looked out to see
Haynes walking away.
First, on May 17, C.M. said she was 75- to 80-percent sure she had
identified the shooter in a photo line-up, but that person had an
alibi. At a subsequent photo line-up, C.M. identified Haynes as the
gunman. Later, C.M. “got right off the chair” and identified Haynes from
a live lineup. She also identified Haynes in court as the person she saw
in the flower shop on May 16 with the gun.
Second, at trial, Haynes’s cousin, I.H., testified that he had given a
statement to the police on May 28, 2004. In the statement, which was
tape-recorded and played for the jury at trial, I.H. said that Haynes told him
on May 16 that Haynes was going to “hit a lick.” I.H. understood
this to mean that Haynes was going to commit a robbery. I.H. also told
police that Haynes’s friend, D.B., had a gun. Finally, I.H. told the
police that Haynes later called I.H. and told him that Haynes had used D.B.’s
gun to shoot a white man on the corner “because he wouldn’t give up the
money.” I.H. made a similar statement to the grand jury.
Although I.H. denied those earlier statements at trial, I.H.
contradicted himself later during his testimony when he said that he remembered
what happened on May 16, 2004, and that what he told police in his May 28
statement was the truth.
Third, A.T. also testified that he was with Haynes the morning of
the murder and that Haynes said he was going to “hit a lick.”
Fourth, another witness, J.C., testified that she had seen Haynes and a
few of his friends the morning after the murder and that Haynes said “he had
shot some old white man.” J.C. also testified that she saw Haynes at his
house and that Haynes said he could not come out because the police were
looking for him. Finally,
Fifth, J.W. testified that she had a conversation with Haynes in which
Haynes bragged about shooting a man at the flower shop.
THE TRIAL: During
deliberations, the jury asked the district court to replay the tape of the 911
call to police and I.H.’s taped statement to the police. The court
complied with the requests by bringing the jury back into the courtroom and
playing each tape once.
A few hours after hearing the tapes, the jury came back with
its verdict, finding Haynes guilty of first-degree murder and second-degree
assault. The court convicted Haynes and sentenced him to life in prison
on the murder count plus 36 months on the assault count.
THIS APPEAL: On this direct appeal, Haynes claimed (1) he was denied a
fair trial when the district court granted the jury’s request during
deliberations to replay a tape-recorded statement; (2) the prosecutor committed
misconduct; and (3) he was denied a fair trial because the district court
allowed the state to ask him about his prior contact with the police.
Justice Gildea wrote the opinion for the unanimous Minnesota
Supreme Court.
First, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the district court did not
abuse its discretion by replaying a tape-recorded statement once in open court
during jury deliberations.
The district court in this case followed the analysis we offered
in Kraushaar. We said in Kraushaar that “it would have been
preferable” for the court to have had the jury review the videotape in the
courtroom, rather than allowing the jury to replay the videotape in the jury
room. The court in this case did precisely what we termed the
“preferable” practice in Kraushaar.
Second, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the state did not commit
prosecutorial misconduct because the prosecutor did not intentionally violate
the district court’s order not to ask about a witness’s fear of appellant and
because the prosecutor did not improperly imply that the defense had a duty to
produce witnesses.
At trial, the district court indicated that its ruling may have
been unclear, and found that the prosecutor did not deliberately violate the
court’s order. The court also ruled that the question was not so
prejudicial as to require a mistrial.
Haynes also alleges that the prosecutor committed misconduct by
improperly implying that the defense had a duty to produce witnesses. We
have said that prosecutors commit misconduct if they attempt to shift the
burden of proof to the defendant.
But the prosecutor did not comment directly on Haynes’s failure to
call a witness. The cross-examination at issue was isolated, accounting
for only three of forty-five pages of the cross-examination, and the prosecutor
made no reference during his closing argument to this portion of the
cross-examination or to the absence of testimony from the people Haynes
testified saw him sleeping at the time of the murder.
Third, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the district court did not
abuse its discretion by allowing the state to attempt to impeach Haynes with
questions regarding his prior contact with the police. Haynes did not claim
during trial that the questioning at issue improperly shifted the burden of
proof.
Haynes’s final argument is that he was denied a fair trial because
the district court allowed the state to ask him about his prior contact with
the police.
Haynes admitted that he gave false identifying information to the
police on two occasions. The state gave the appropriate notice in this
case that if Haynes testified it would seek to impeach him with evidence of
these lies and with evidence of his contacts with police “in proximity of the
flower shop.” (“The proper approach [is] for the prosecutor to give
pretrial notice, which [gives] the defendant an opportunity to request a
hearing on the issue before making a decision as to whether or not to
testify.”).
Gildea (Russell Anderson, Page, Paul Anderson,
Hanson, Meyer, and Barry Anderson)
DATE OF DECISION: January 4, 2007
RECORD NUMBER: 2007-005
DESCRIPTION: [MURDER] [GILDEA] [ROBBERY]
No comments:
Post a Comment