State of Minnesota v. Devon Derrick Parker, A15-1417

Defendant Devon Parker convicted of second-degree intentional murder; appealed denial of change of venue and an upward durational sentencing departure.
Pretrial publicity included 14 news articles, a TV broadcast script, and a county-attorney press conference referring to the victim as a “Good Samaritan”; publicity occurred ~14 months before trial.
Voir dire produced no juror admissions of knowledge about the case; defense limited questioning by agreement not to use the phrase “Good Samaritan.”
At trial, evidence showed victim T.S. invited Parker into his home, then re-locked the door, ordered Parker to sit in a room with other loaded weapons, refused to let him leave, and a struggle ended with Parker shooting T.S. with T.S.’s gun.
District court imposed a 480‑month sentence: 366 months presumptive + 114 months upward departure based solely on invasion of the victim’s zone of privacy; court rejected defendant’s mitigation arguments (duress, victim aggression).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of change of venue was an abuse of discretion	State: publicity was factual and remote; no reasonable likelihood of unfair trial	Parker: pretrial publicity and prosecutor’s press conference created prejudice preventing fair trial	Denial affirmed — publicity was factual, occurred >1 year before trial, voir dire showed no juror familiarity, no plain‑error prejudice shown from press conference
Whether prosecutor’s pretrial statements required reversal for misconduct	State: no showing that statements affected substantial rights	Parker: press conference comments (and other pretrial statements) were prejudicial and constituted misconduct	Rejected — claim not properly preserved; no record evidence the statements affected substantial rights
Whether upward durational departure for invasion of zone of privacy was proper	State: home invasion justifies upward departure	Parker: circumstances (invited entry, locked in, threatened at gunpoint) mitigate application of zone‑of‑privacy and support denial of departure	Reversed — court erred by relying solely on zone‑of‑privacy without addressing evidence that Parker was held and threatened and without weighing mitigating factors
Remedy for improper upward departure	State: departure justified	Parker: remand for resentencing to presumptive term	Court reversed aggravated portion and remanded for imposition of the presumptive 366‑month sentence

State v. Blom, 682 N.W.2d 578 (Minn. 2004) (standard of review for change of venue denial)
State v. Warren, 592 N.W.2d 440 (Minn. 1999) (pretrial factual publicity insufficient to show prejudice)
State v. Fairbanks, 842 N.W.2d 297 (Minn. 2014) (passage of time can mitigate prejudicial effect of media coverage)
State v. Griller, 583 N.W.2d 736 (Minn. 1998) (plain‑error review for unobjected‑to trial errors)
State v. Kindem, 338 N.W.2d 9 (Minn. 1983) (zone‑of‑privacy can justify upward departure)
State v. Thao, 649 N.W.2d 414 (Minn. 2002) (limits on zone‑of‑privacy; home entry context)
State v. Jackson, 749 N.W.2d 353 (Minn. 2008) (abuse‑of‑discretion review for sentencing departures; reverse if reasons improper)
State v. Wall, 343 N.W.2d 22 (Minn. 1984) (must consider mitigating factors when departing upward)
State v. Curtiss, 353 N.W.2d 262 (Minn. 1984) (district court must balance aggravating and mitigating factors)
State v. Solberg, 882 N.W.2d 618 (Minn. 2016) (a single mitigating factor may support downward departure)