State of Minnesota v. Amanda Lea Peltier, 2016 Minn. LEXIS 51

Background

Amanda Peltier was convicted by a Pope County jury of first‑degree murder while committing child abuse (Minn. Stat. § 609.185(a)(5)), second‑degree murder while committing malicious punishment of a child, and second‑degree manslaughter for the 2013 death of her four‑year‑old stepson, Eric.
Autopsy showed a perforated bowel causing fatal peritonitis and crescent‑shaped scalp injuries consistent with adult bites; multiple bruises and other injuries were documented.
Peltier made several admissions to investigators and witnesses described prior physical abuse of Eric (slaps, bites, throwing him, a broken arm previously treated as suspicious), and daycare reports documented recurring injuries.
The indictment charged first‑degree child‑abuse murder and second‑degree murder while committing malicious punishment of a child; the jury returned convictions and the court imposed life with parole eligibility after 30 years.
On appeal Peltier challenged: (1) a jury instruction that omitted statutory elements of malicious punishment when listing it as a form of child abuse in the first‑degree murder instruction; (2) admission of expert testimony calling biting a child "particularly vicious"; and (3) prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Peltier)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Jury instruction omitted elements of malicious punishment in the §609.185(a)(5) instruction	The instruction listing malicious punishment as child abuse omitted §609.377, subd. 1 elements (intentional act; unreasonable force/cruel discipline), allowing conviction without finding those elements	Instruction fairly explained law overall and other instructions covered malicious punishment; any omission was not prejudicial	Court: Omission was plain error but Peltier failed to show effect on substantial rights given overwhelming evidence and prior instructions that included elements; conviction affirmed
Admissibility of expert testimony that adult biting is "particularly vicious"	Testimony was inflammatory, low probative value, and unhelpful; should have been excluded	Expert qualified; testimony assisted jury and the contested remark was brief and either struck or not emphasized	Court: Even assuming abuse of discretion, no reasonable likelihood the remark affected the verdict (harmless)
Prosecutorial misconduct in closing (disparaging defense, arguing facts not in evidence, misstating law)	Prosecutor disparaged Peltier’s decision to go to trial, speculated about Peltier learning abuse from an ex‑partner and made unsupported inferences, and mischaracterized past‑pattern law	Remarks were permissible inferences or not prejudicial; past‑pattern law was correctly stated by prosecutor	Court: Some remarks were improper (disparaging and speculative) but isolated and not likely to affect substantial rights; on past‑pattern law the prosecutor did not err — evidence against other children admissible; conviction affirmed
Whether past‑pattern under §609.185(a)(5) may be shown by abuse of other children	Peltier argued limiting past‑pattern to abuse of the same child (Eric) would be required	Legislature amended statute to "upon a child"; analogous domestic‑abuse language permits using abuse of other family/household members	Court: Amendment permits past‑pattern evidence involving other children; prosecutor’s instruction on this point was correct

Key Cases Cited

State v. Mahkuk, 736 N.W.2d 675 (Minn. 2007) (standard of review for jury instructions)
State v. Kelley, 855 N.W.2d 269 (Minn. 2014) (instructions must fairly and adequately explain the law)
State v. Watkins, 840 N.W.2d 21 (Minn. 2013) (plain‑error framework for omitted jury‑instruction elements)
State v. Ramey, 721 N.W.2d 294 (Minn. 2006) (modified plain‑error test for unobjected prosecutorial misconduct)
State v. Hayes, 831 N.W.2d 546 (Minn. 2013) (past‑pattern domestic‑abuse provision may rely on abuse of another family/household member)
State v. Griller, 583 N.W.2d 736 (Minn. 1998) (plain‑error review requires showing an error that is plain and affects substantial rights)