State of Minnesota v. Brian George Fitch, 2016 Minn. LEXIS 529

Background

Brian George Fitch shot and killed Mendota Heights Officer Scott Patrick during a traffic stop in Dakota County; later engaged in a shootout with police in Ramsey County and was arrested after a pursuit and SWAT extraction.
A multi-county grand jury (Dakota and Ramsey) was convened under Minn. Stat. § 628.41; the grand jury returned an indictment charging Fitch with first-degree murder (peace officer), three counts of attempted first-degree murder (peace officers), and unauthorized possession of a firearm.
The court that impaneled the multi-county grand jury (Dakota County) designated Dakota County as the county of venue for trial under § 628.41, subdivision 3; the Dakota County Attorney’s office was designated to prosecute with Ramsey assistance.
Fitch moved to dismiss and to sever the Ramsey County charges (attempted murder and firearm-possession) arguing his Article I, § 6, right to a jury from the county where the crime occurred was violated; he also sought a change of venue for prejudice from media coverage.
The district court granted Fitch’s motion to change venue because of publicity (transferring trial to Stearns County), denied dismissal and severance, and Fitch was tried in Stearns County and convicted on all counts.
On appeal Fitch argued (1) § 628.41’s use here violated his Minnesota Constitution Article I, § 6, vicinage right and (2) the court erred by refusing to sever the first-degree murder charge from the Ramsey County charges.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Fitch)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether application of Minn. Stat. § 628.41 violated Article I, § 6 (right to jury from county/district where crime occurred)	Fitch: venue for Ramsey County offenses improperly designated in Dakota County via § 628.41, depriving him of right to jury drawn from Ramsey County	State: § 628.41 is constitutional; preventing multiple prosecutions and avoiding duplicative trauma to witnesses are legitimate interests supporting multi-county handling and Dakota venue designation	Court: No violation — Article I, § 6 secures a jury from the vicinage but is not absolute; because Fitch obtained (and requested) a change of venue due to prejudicial publicity in the Twin Cities, he could not have obtained an impartial Ramsey County jury, so his vicinage right was not violated
Whether district court erred in denying severance of first-degree murder charge from other charges	Fitch: charges occurred in different counties/times and joinder unfairly prejudiced his right to fair determination of each charge	State: offenses were related (time, distance, common motive/plan) and evidence of each would be admissible in separate trials; joinder not prejudicial; any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt	Court: No reversible prejudice shown; evidence was interrelated and overwhelming; even if joinder arguable error, admission of each offense’s evidence would have been Spreigl-admissible in separate trials, so Fitch not entitled to relief

Key Cases Cited

State v. Chambers, 589 N.W.2d 466 (Minn. 1999) (standard for reviewing constitutionality of statutes)
In re Haggerty, 448 N.W.2d 363 (Minn. 1989) (presumption of constitutionality for statutes)
State v. Merrill, 450 N.W.2d 318 (Minn. 1990) (burden on challenger to show statute unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Wolf, 605 N.W.2d 381 (Minn. 2000) (statutory and rule interplay on venue and related principles)
State v. Krejci, 458 N.W.2d 407 (Minn. 1990) (special-venue reasoning and precedents)
State v. Kendell, 723 N.W.2d 597 (Minn. 2006) (severance / related-offenses and single behavioral incident test)
State v. Profit, 591 N.W.2d 451 (Minn. 1999) (time/place/single criminal objective factors for relatedness)
State v. Conaway, 319 N.W.2d 35 (Minn. 1982) (joinder not prejudicial when evidence of each offense would be admissible in trial of the other)
State v. McDaniel, 777 N.W.2d 739 (Minn. 2010) (use of other acts evidence to show consciousness of guilt)
State v. Bias, 419 N.W.2d 480 (Minn. 1988) (prior-act evidence admissibility for issues like possession and motive)