2006-M-29 State
of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Lennell Maurice Martin, Appellant.
DESCRIPTION OF CRIME: On November 3,
2002, Lennell Maurice Martin and Jeffery Young broke into the Anoka
apartment of Precious Franklin, her toddler son (R.E.), and her boyfriend
(Curtis Anthony). Martin wielded a shotgun, and Young wielded a long
knife.
The burglars
locked R.E. and Precious Franklin in the bathroom, where they soon heard
Franklin scream, a knock at the outer apartment door, then a gunshot, and the
sound of people running from her apartment. She emerged to find
Anthony conscious but shot and stabbed. Anthony was in the bedroom
doorway, holding his chest. He gasped, "Call the police. Jeff and
Lenair."
She ran to her
neighbor (Kevin Tilvis) to call for medical and police assistance. Tilvis
said he had already called 9-1-1, he had knocked on Precious Franklin’s front
door when he heard a scream and gun-shot, and he had seen a green Cadillac
parked in front of the apartment.
Anthony was
taken to the hospital, where he died an hour later.
Monica Green,
Anthony's sister, called Franklin from the hospital and asked her what had
happened. Franklin told her and mentioned that Anthony had said two names,
"Jeff and Lenair." Green asked if Franklin meant "Jeff and
Lennell," and Franklin responded, "Yes. That's it." Green told
the police that "Jeff and Lennell" were cousins of Anthony's
ex-girlfriend, Monique Frye.
Investigating
officers interviewed Monique Frye on the morning of November 3, *582 2002. She
gave them the full names of Jeffery Young and Lennell Martin, and told them
that Martin drove a bluish-green Cadillac. The afternoon of the same day,
Franklin picked Martin as the gunman from a six-person photo lineup. The next
day, Franklin picked Jeffery Young as the other intruder from another
six-person photo lineup.
Investigating
officers located a 1992 green Cadillac El Dorado, registered to Martin's mother
and parked behind her home. When the Cadillac was searched, police found
bloodstains on the dashboard, steering wheel, and headlight switch. An expert
witness on DNA tested the blood and determined that it matched the DNA profile
obtained from Anthony.
In Jeffery
Young's car police found a printout of directions to Anthony's apartment with
handwritten notations of Anthony's first name and landmarks on the route to
Anthony's apartment. A handwriting expert identified the notations as having
been written by Young.
THE TRIAL: The jury heard about information from
Precious Franklin, Carl Anthony, Kevin Tivis, Monica Green, Monique Frye, the
coroner, crime-scene analysis, the photo arrays, the line-ups, and DNA data
from the apartment and the Cadillac.
Martin was
convicted of first-degree premeditated murder, first-degree murder while
committing a burglary, second-degree assault against Franklin, and kidnapping
of Franklin and her son. We affirm in part and remand.
FIRST PART OF DIRECT APPEAL: On May 12, 2005, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Helen
Meyer, the Minnesota Supreme Court rejected most of Martin’s claims, but
returned the case to the trial court for clarifications of the record about
four sets of communications between the trial judge and the jury during
deliberations.
First, the trial court
admitted into evidence without objection Anthony's statement, "Call the
police. Jeff and Lenair." On appeal, Martin argues that this statement was
inadmissible hearsay under the Minnesota Rules of Evidence and constitutionally
barred under the holding in Crawford v. Washington, (2004). The state's
position is that Crawford bars only "testimonial" statements
and because Anthony's statement was not testimonial, it was properly admitted.
Additionally, the state asserts that Anthony's statement is admissible as an
exception to the hearsay rule, either as a dying declaration or an excited
utterance.
Second, in his pro se supplemental brief, Martin
raises several additional arguments in support of his request for a new trial.
He argues that the photo lineup procedure, the alleged destruction of evidence,
and the amendment of the indictment with additional charges violated his due
process rights; that the state committed prosecutorial misconduct; that the
trial court judge erred in giving the jury an instruction based on CRIMJIG 3.04
and in failing to order the removal of Martin's leg restraint; and that he received
ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We have reviewed each of Martin's pro
se claims and find them to be without merit, with the exception of Martin's
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Third, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court for a
clarification of the record about communications between the trial judge and
the jury during deliberations.
“We turn to the
question of whether it was reversible error for the trial court judge to have
four different communications with the jury that occurred without Martin's
presence, knowledge, or consent. Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.03,
subdivision 1, states that the defendant shall be present "at every stage
of the trial." In State v. Thompson, this court held that the right
to be present at trial is broader under the Minnesota Rules of Criminal
Procedure than is required by the United States Constitution.
Responding to a deliberating jury's question is a stage of trial. While
the defendant can waive his right to be present at a stage of trial, the
decision to waive the right is "not for counsel to make but a personal
decision for defendant to make after consultation with counsel."
SECOND PART OF DIRECT APPEAL: On November 16, 2006, Justice Gildea wrote a 5-2 majority
opinion holding that it was not error for the judge to answer four questions
from the jury about the law, proper procedures, the instructions to the jury,
and the evidence without the presence of the defendant, especially when the
defendant had left the country during the deliberations and with the court’s
permission.
DATE OF DECISION: November 16, 2006
RECORD NUMBER: 2006-195
DESCRIPTION: [MURDER]
No comments:
Post a Comment