State of Minnesota v. David Muniz Bustos, 861 N.W.2d 655

Background

Bustos was convicted by jury of first-degree murder while committing domestic abuse, second-degree intentional murder, second-degree felony murder, and third-degree murder in Minnesota.
He appeals a new trial on the first-degree domestic-abuse murder charge, arguing errors in jury instructions and closing arguments.
He also argues that the district court erred by excluding his preliminary breath test (PBT) results in the second-degree murder case, which affected his ability to present the voluntary intoxication defense.
The district court instructed the jury on a five-element first-degree domestic-abuse murder theory, including a past pattern of domestic abuse, and restricted defense closing arguments about the State’s proof on that element.
The State introduced seven alleged incidents of domestic abuse against Limón and others, including prior incidents with Limón’s daughter and Bustos’s family members, to prove a past pattern.
After trial, the court denied a motion to admit the PBT, and Bustos was sentenced to life with possibility of release for first-degree domestic-abuse murder; the conviction on that count is reversed and remanded.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the closing argument restriction on arguing the pattern element was plain error	Bustos argues the district court improperly barred arguing that the State must prove any alleged prior act beyond a reasonable doubt.	Bustos contends the limit was plain error because Johnson and Kelbel require proof of more than one act, but not necessarily every act, beyond a reasonable doubt.	Yes; plain error; cumulatively with another error requires a new trial on the first-degree charge.
Whether the jury instruction definition of 'domestic abuse' broadened beyond the statute	Bustos contends the instruction allowed nonstatutory acts to qualify as domestic abuse.	Bustos argues the instruction’s 'similar acts' language was ambiguous and could be read as broader than the statute.	Yes; plain error; instruction broadened the offense, contributing to reversal on the first-degree charge.
Whether the errors were cumulative and affected Bustos's substantial rights	The combined impact of closing-argument restriction and broad instruction prejudiced the defense.	Wright argues no substantial-rights effect; record shows defense could argue other theories and evidence was overwhelming.	Yes; cumulative plain error warranted a new trial for the first-degree domestic-abuse murder charge.
Whether the PBT exclusion was harmless with respect to the second-degree murder conviction	Excluding PBT results prejudiced his defense to voluntary intoxication.	Even if excluded, other evidence showed intoxication; PBT was cumulative and not outcome-determinative.	Harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; second-degree murder conviction affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Cross, 577 N.W.2d 721 (Minn. 1998) (each element must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt; pattern-proof framework)
State v. Kelbel, 648 N.W.2d 690 (Minn. 2002) (state may prove underlying acts without every act beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Hayes, 831 N.W.2d 546 (Minn. 2013) (defines past pattern of domestic abuse; proximate acts forming a reliable sample)
State v. Johnson, 773 N.W.2d 81 (Minn. 2009) (more than one underlying act may prove a pattern; not all acts must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Griller, 588 N.W.2d 736 (Minn. 1998) (plain-error standard and substantial-rights analysis; need to assess impact on fairness)
Herring v. New York, 422 U.S. 853 (1975) (closing argument is a critical stage; importance of preserving defense advocacy)
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (U.S. 1970) (beyond a reasonable doubt as essential to due-process protections)
Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (plain-error review requires more than substantial-rights; must affect integrity of proceedings)
State v. Baird, 654 N.W.2d 105 (Minn. 2002) (harmless-error considerations under plain-error framework)
State v. Charlton, 338 N.W.2d 26 (Minn. 1983) (due-process-related instructional errors not always reversible)