State of Minnesota v. Quintin Deshun Dye
2015 Minn. App. LEXIS 86
Minn. Ct. App.2015Background
- At 2:36 a.m. E.G. called 911 saying appellant Quintin Dye had just shot her in the lower back; police and paramedics arrived minutes later while she remained distraught and complaining of pain.
- Officers and paramedics observed a gunshot wound to E.G.’s lower back; she was able to walk and talk and was transported to the hospital.
- CT scan showed the bullet traveled ~8 inches through her abdomen but did not strike vital organs; physicians removed the bullet via small incision and discharged E.G. the next day.
- E.G. told the 911 dispatcher and on-scene officers that Dye shot her; in a recorded hospital interview the next day she said she was “almost positive” another male (“Mess”) shot her and expressed fear of Dye.
- Jury convicted Dye of first-degree assault, second-degree assault, and unlawful firearm possession; Dye appealed challenging sufficiency of first-degree-assault evidence, Confrontation Clause admission of out-of-court statements, admission of law-enforcement interview statements, and alleged prosecutorial misconduct.
- Court reversed the first-degree-assault conviction (remanding for entry of second-degree judgment) but affirmed on the other claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Dye) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for first-degree assault (great bodily harm) | Bullet through torso created a "high probability of death" or at least "other serious bodily harm" because entry location could have struck vital organs. | CT showed bullet path missed vital organs; injury was not life-threatening and did not show permanent/protracted impairment. | Reversed first-degree conviction: when bullet path and organs hit are known, injury here did not create a high probability of death nor proved other serious bodily harm. Remand to enter second-degree assault judgment. |
| Confrontation Clause: admission of 911 call and on-scene statements | Statements identified Dye as shooter and were admissible as excited/ongoing-emergency responses. | Admission of absent victim’s statements violated Crawford/Davis because testimonial and deprived Dye of cross-examination. | Affirmed admission: statements were nontestimonial (made during an ongoing emergency) and therefore permissible without live testimony. |
| Admission of recorded hospital interviews / prior consistent statements | State: full interviews admissible for rehabilitation after defendant introduced an inconsistent hospital statement; fairness/opening-the-door permits completeness. | Dye: court erred in allowing expansive admission beyond limited impeachment context; statements were inconsistent so prior consistent statements improper. | No plain error: Dye opened the door by introducing the hospital statement; allowing full interviews was fair and not plainly erroneous. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument | Prosecutor’s comments did not materially prejudice Dye; evidence against Dye was strong and any remarks were brief. | Prosecutor vouched for victim, inflamed jury, and suggested Dye caused victim’s absence; these comments were improper and prejudicial. | Affirmed: even assuming plain error, state showed no reasonable likelihood the comments affected the verdict (strong evidence, brief remarks, curative jury instructions). |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gerald, 486 N.W.2d 799 (Minn. App. 1992) (jury must focus on the injury itself; proximity to vital organs is not enough to show high probability of death)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (primary-purpose test for whether statements are testimonial)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial statements inadmissible unless declarant unavailable and defendant had prior opportunity to cross-examine)
- State v. LaTourelle, 343 N.W.2d 277 (Minn. 1984) (remand to enter conviction for lesser-included offense when higher conviction reversed for insufficiency)
- State v. Bailey, 732 N.W.2d 612 (Minn. 2007) (opening-the-door doctrine permits otherwise inadmissible evidence for fairness/completeness)
- State v. Ramey, 721 N.W.2d 294 (Minn. 2006) (modified plain-error review for unobjected-to prosecutorial misconduct)