State of Minnesota v. Mark William Latimer
A15-1923
Minn. Ct. App.Oct 11, 2016Background
- On June 8, 2012, inmate Mark William Latimer struck fellow inmate J.V. six times in the back of the head with a large wooden board at Rush City Correctional Facility; J.V. suffered a depressed skull fracture and life-threatening brain injury and required emergency surgery.
- Security footage showed Latimer pick up and set down the board, leave, then return, retrieve the same board, approach J.V. from behind, and deliver six blows to a vital area before walking away without rendering aid.
- Latimer gave a recorded statement saying J.V. had threatened him after learning Latimer’s sex-offender convictions and that Latimer ‘‘ain’t got nothing to lose so I bust him in his head,’’ but also saying he ‘‘wasn’t gonna hurt him bad.’n
- Charged initially with first-degree assault, the complaint was later amended to add attempted first-degree and attempted second-degree murder; Latimer raised self-defense at trial.
- After a bench trial the district court convicted Latimer of attempted first-degree murder, attempted second-degree murder, and first-degree assault and imposed a 240-month sentence on the attempted first-degree murder count.
- Latimer appealed, arguing primarily that the state failed to prove intent/premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt; he also filed a pro se supplemental brief raising claims including ineffective assistance, overcharging, credit for MSOP custody, and Miranda issues.
Issues
| Issue | Latimer's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence as to intent/premeditation for attempted 1st/2d-degree murder | Evidence did not prove he intended to kill; at most intended to incapacitate to thwart a threat | Video, conduct, targeting of head, number of blows, and severity of injuries support intent and premeditation | Affirmed: circumstantial evidence supports intent and premeditation; only rational hypothesis is guilt |
| Self-defense | Latimer claimed J.V. threatened him and he acted to defend himself | Video and circumstances (approach from behind, multiple blows to head, no aid) rebut self-defense claim | District court correctly rejected self-defense; conviction stands |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (pro se) | Counsel failed to inform him of charges, failed investigation, poor trial performance, and conspiracy with state agencies | Record shows receipt of amended complaint, adequate investigation and strategy, and no evidence of conspiracy; many points implicate trial strategy | Denied: Latimer did not show deficient performance or prejudice; claims lack merit |
| Overcharging/vindictive prosecution after plea refusal | Adding attempted-murder charges after refusing plea was vindictive and violated due process | Prosecutor may negotiate and seek charges; no evidence of vindictiveness presented | Denied: no showing of vindictive prosecution; plea-bargaining conduct constitutional |
| Credit for time in MSOP custody | Latimer sought credit for time spent in Minnesota Sex Offender Program between attack and sentencing | MSOP placement stemmed from prior civil commitment unrelated to this criminal case | Denied: MSOP time not creditable because unrelated civil commitment |
| Miranda/statement admissibility | Recorded statement should be suppressed on Miranda grounds | Latimer made no contemporaneous objection at trial to use of the taped statement | Issue forfeited on appeal; not reviewed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Holliday, 745 N.W.2d 556 (Minn. 2008) (premeditation requires an appreciable time for consideration, planning, or determination)
- State v. Cox, 884 N.W.2d 400 (Minn. 2016) (premeditation may be inferred from planning, motive, nature of killing, and defendant’s post-act conduct)
- State v. Silvernail, 831 N.W.2d 594 (Minn. 2013) (two-step circumstantial-evidence review: identify proved circumstances, then test consistency with guilt)
- State v. Geshick, 168 N.W.2d 331 (Minn. 1969) (upholding attempted 1st-degree murder where attack from behind caused serious injury)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective-assistance claims: deficient performance and resulting prejudice)
- Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 (1978) (prosecutorial plea negotiations and charging decisions are constitutionally permissible absent clear vindictiveness)