State of Minnesota v. Marco Anthony Gresham, A15-1691

Background

In July 2014 Gresham allegedly shot V.G. (survived) and F.D. (killed); indicted for first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder.
During voir dire a prospective juror (Juror M), an African‑American woman, expressed views that the criminal‑justice system is unfair and that her son had been racially profiled.
The prosecutor asked follow‑up questions referencing racial disparities and Black Lives Matter; the court denied a for‑cause strike but allowed a peremptory strike over defense objection.
At trial V.G. testified she had told F.D. that Gresham was rumored to have committed a separate January 2014 St. Paul homicide; defense objected to admission of that statement as prior‑bad‑act evidence.
Jury convicted Gresham of second‑degree murder (F.D.) and attempted first‑degree murder (V.G.); Gresham appealed raising Batson, evidentiary, Confrontation/Hearsay, Brady, and ineffective‑assistance claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prosecutor’s peremptory strike of Juror M (Batson)	Strike was race‑based; prosecutor’s questions show disparate treatment and racial motivation	Prosecutor offered race‑neutral reasons: juror’s stated bias against police, difficulty presuming innocence, and concern about considering consequences	Court upheld strike: race‑neutral explanation accepted and no purposeful discrimination proved
Admission of V.G.’s statement about a rumored St. Paul homicide (Spreigl / immediate‑episode)	Statement was prior‑bad‑act evidence and required Spreigl analysis; should be excluded	State argued statement was neutral and admissible to explain motive/intent; limiting instruction given	Court held statement was not Spreigl/prior‑bad‑act or immediate‑episode evidence and its admission was not an abuse of discretion
Hearsay / Confrontation Clause / personal knowledge	Testimony about the rumor was hearsay, testimonial, and violated Confrontation and Rule 602	Statement was not offered for the truth of the matter (used to explain motive), so not hearsay or testimonial; witness had personal knowledge of repeating the rumor	Court held no hearsay or Confrontation violation and Rule 602 not implicated
Brady and ineffective assistance for failure to obtain St. Paul police reports	Missing reports were favorable/exculpatory; counsel ineffective for not subpoenaing/investigating	State did not rely on St. Paul homicide as proof; reports were not exculpatory; record inadequate to resolve ineffective‑assistance claim on direct appeal	Court rejected Brady claim; preserved ineffective‑assistance claim for postconviction review (no remand on direct appeal)

Key Cases Cited

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (prohibits race‑based peremptory challenges)
Miller‑El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (prima facie Batson showing is based on totality of relevant facts)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause limits on testimonial statements)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecution’s suppression of favorable evidence violates due process)
State v. Pendleton, 725 N.W.2d 717 (Minn. 2007) (deference to district court Batson rulings; appellate review if error)
State v. Onyelobi, 879 N.W.2d 334 (Minn. 2016) (Batson analysis and race‑neutral explanation standard)
State v. Wren, 738 N.W.2d 378 (Minn. 2007) (prospective juror’s minority status alone does not establish Batson inference)
State v. Salas, 306 N.W.2d 832 (Minn. 1981) (statements indicating defendant thought victim would accuse him of a prior crime admissible to show motive)
State v. Riddley, 776 N.W.2d 419 (Minn. 2009) (immediate‑episode evidence doctrine defined)
State v. Fardan, 773 N.W.2d 303 (Minn. 2009) (policy behind excluding prior‑bad‑act evidence)