State of Minnesota v. Rashad Devon Mickelson, A15-1498

Background

Victim (P.B.) awoke in her daughter’s apartment to a man touching her inner thigh and saw him standing over her; she fought him off and he fled. Phone was missing; 911 called after daughter returned. Fingerprints/palm print were later recovered from the apartment window and processed by forensic examiners.
Police showed P.B. a photo lineup about a month later; officer suggested the suspect was pictured but P.B. did not identify anyone, saying she needed a side profile to be sure. At trial, P.B. made an in-court identification of Rashad Devon Mickelson and testified she was 100% certain.
Forensic scientist Michael Schultz used the ACE–V method to identify a latent fingerprint and palm print as Mickelson’s; Jenny Bunkers performed independent verification and agreed.
A trainee performed initial print testing but the state did not introduce any trainee report; only Schultz and Bunkers testified about their independent verifications.
The district court ruled the state could impeach Mickelson with an unspecified prior felony if he testified; Mickelson elected not to testify. A jury convicted him of first-degree burglary and fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct. Mickelson appealed.

Issues

Issue	Mickelson's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Admissibility of fingerprint/palm-print expert testimony	Testimony overstated certainty; partial prints cannot identify a person with requisite scientific certainty	ACE–V is reliable; experts’ language did not assert exclusion of all others and was permissible opinion testimony	Court affirmed: ACE–V reliable; experts’ conclusions admissible and did not imply absolute certainty
Confrontation Clause re: trainee examiner not called	Sixth Amendment violated because trainee who performed initial testing was not available for cross-examination	No trainee report or out-of-court statement was offered; only verifying examiners testified to their independent conclusions	Court held Confrontation Clause not implicated because only verifiers’ independent testimony was admitted
Impeachment with unspecified felony if defendant testified	Allowing unspecified felony is prejudicial and circumvents Jones factors	District court weighed Jones factors and avoided specifics because of similarity to charged burglary	Court upheld the ruling: district court did not abuse discretion in permitting unspecified felony impeachment
Suppression of in-court identification (due process)	Pretrial suggestive photo lineup and seeing defendant at counsel table tainted in-court ID	Lineup was not unnecessarily suggestive; P.B. had independent basis (TV light) and jury could weigh credibility	Court rejected suppression: in-court ID not impermissibly suggestive and jury could assess credibility

Key Cases Cited

State v. Dixon, 822 N.W.2d 664 (Minn. App. 2012) (ACE–V fingerprint methodology is scientifically reliable and admissible)
State v. Ritt, 599 N.W.2d 802 (Minn. 1999) (standard of review for expert testimony admissibility)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause applies to witnesses who bear testimonial statements)
State v. Hawkinson, 829 N.W.2d 367 (Minn. 2013) (forensic reports implicate confrontation when analyst’s out-of-court conclusions are admitted)
State v. Jones, 271 N.W.2d 534 (Minn. 1978) (factors for admitting prior convictions for impeachment)
State v. Swanson, 707 N.W.2d 645 (Minn. 2006) (application of Jones factors and standard of review)
State v. Hill, 801 N.W.2d 646 (Minn. 2011) (unspecified felony impeachment permitted; any felony has impeachment value)
State v. Ostrem, 535 N.W.2d 916 (Minn. 1995) (in-court ID permissible where witness has independent source for identification)
State v. Pippitt, 645 N.W.2d 87 (Minn. 2002) (credibility determinations are for the jury)