2006-M-25 State
of Minnesota, Appellant, vs. Said Moussa Gouleed, Respondent.
DESCRIPTION OF CRIME: On November 8, 2002, Gouleed was left alone to care for his
six-month-old daughter, F.M. When his wife returned after two hours, she
found Gouleed cradling F.M. who was not breathing. The baby was
declared dead at the hospital.
Gouleed told officers that, while he was watching F.M., he took
F.M. out of her crib to give her a bottle because she was crying. Gouleed
also told officers that he tripped over an infant chair while carrying F.M.,
causing him to drop her. He said her head hit the floor, then she
“jumped” up and her head hit the wall.
Dr. Michael McGee, the Ramsey County medical examiner, performed
an autopsy on F.M. the next day. He documented the following injuries:
significant, depressed fractures on both sides of her skull; multiple healing
fractures to her ribs; bi-lateral femur fractures; healing fractures of a forearm,
wrist, and finger; contusions on her head, face, chest, and arms; and bruising
on both of her legs. According to the complaint, Dr. McGee’s provisional
report concluded that the cause of death was injuries resulting from child
abuse and the manner of death was homicide. Gouleed was charged with
second-degree unintentional felony murder.
THE TRIAL: The district court in the first trial sua sponte
ordered a mistrial because of a discovery violation by the defense’s expert
witness. A defense expert had failed to disclose testing of autopsy
slides that formed the basis of his opinion that the victim’s critical injuries
were inflicted days before her death.
When the trial judge declared a mistrial and ordered a new trial,
there was no discussion on the record of the possible double-jeopardy
consequences of a mistrial. Before retrial, Gouleed moved to
dismiss the charge on double-jeopardy grounds. The district court denied
the motion, stating that “the state was deprived of a fair trial when the defense
did not provide full disclosure of its expert’s basis for opinions going to
[the] very heart of the issue – the age of the injuries.”
The second trial commenced on December 1, 2003. Gouleed
employed a different expert for the second trial. The jury in the second
trial found Gouleed guilty and he was sentenced to 225 months in prison.
PRIOR PROCEEDING: Gouleed appealed to the court of appeals. The court
of appeals reversed the orders declaring a mistrial and denying the motion to
bar the retrial, and reversed Gouleed’s conviction, saying that it was “unable
to reach any principled conclusion that there was a manifest necessity for a
mistrial or that the [trial] court and counsel appropriately investigated and
examined measures short of a mistrial to remedy the discovery violation.”
This appeal followed.
THIS APPEAL: On direct appeal, Gouleed claimed that: 1) The
district court abused its discretion in ordering a mistrial in a felony murder
case where a defense expert failed to disclose testing of autopsy slides that
formed the basis of his opinion that the victim’s critical injuries were
inflicted days before her death; and 2) the retrial of the
defendant did unconstitutionally subject him to double jeopardy where the
record in the first trial established a manifest necessity for a mistrial.
Justice Gildea joined the 6-1 decision by Justice Helen Meyer on
this direct appeal to uphold Gouleed’s conviction and sentence.
First, the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals’
reversal of the district court’s orders declaring a mistrial and denying the
motion to bar retrial.
“To permit the defendant’s key witness to commit a serious
discovery error and then to bar retrial of the case would not serve the
principles rooted in the double-jeopardy doctrine.”
Second, the Minnesota Supreme Court reinstated Gouleed’s conviction and
remanded to the district court for resentencing in accord with the court of
appeals’ opinion.
In sentencing Gouleed to 225 months after the retrial, the trial
court had imposed an improper upward departure of75 months above the 150-month
cap on the sentence which should have been made only with the authorization by
a jury.
DATE OF DECISION: September 7, 2006
RECORD NUMBER: 2006-158
DESCRIPTION: [MURDER]
No comments:
Post a Comment