State of Minnesota v. Thomas James Fox, 868 N.W.2d 206

Background

Victim Lori Baker was found dead in her apartment on Dec. 28, 2011, with 48 stab wounds; scene showed attempts to clean and missing debit card and car.
Thomas Fox, Baker’s on‑again/off‑again boyfriend who sometimes stayed at her apartment, was linked to numerous post‑murder debit‑card transactions and surveillance placing him and a car matching Baker’s near several uses.
Fox was arrested on an unrelated DOC warrant on Dec. 29, 2011; he made statements both that day (after receiving Miranda warnings) and on Dec. 30 (after reinitiating contact following an invocation of counsel).
Forensic evidence: blood mixtures with a predominant profile matching Fox on the comforter; DNA on Fox’s clothing excluded Baker; ME testified cause of death and nature of wounds consistent with prolonged, violent attack.
At trial the State presented witness statements (friends, jailhouse informants) implicating Fox, surveillance and debit‑card evidence, and BCA/ME testimony; Fox was convicted of first‑degree premeditated murder and first‑degree felony murder and sentenced to life without release.

Issues

Issue	Fox’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
1) Validity of Dec. 29 Miranda waiver	Fox did not knowingly or intelligently waive rights; he was arrested on unrelated warrant and wasn’t told interrogation topic	Fox volunteered subject (Baker’s car), was read rights, said he understood, then spoke — waiver may be implied	Court: Waiver valid under totality; Fox voluntarily spoke after acknowledging rights (Berghuis/Merrill framework)
2) Admissibility of Dec. 30 statement after invocation of counsel	Fox had invoked right to counsel and later only waived because (a) public defenders had sought to see him, (b) he was misinformed about availability of a public defender	State: Fox reinitiated contact; officers gave fresh warnings; absent knowledge by Fox of third‑party contact, Moran controls; no police misconduct	Court: Waiver valid; Moran governs inadvertent/unaware attorney contacts; Minnesota Constitution does not require broader rule here
3) Refusal to give Fox’s proposed circumstantial‑evidence jury instruction	Proposed instruction required all proved circumstances be inconsistent with any other rational hypothesis	State: Pattern CRIMJIG instructions correctly state law; Turnipseed forecloses mandatory ‘‘rational‑hypothesis’’ instruction	Court: No abuse of discretion; pattern instructions were sufficient; Turnipseed remains controlling
4) Sufficiency of evidence for first‑degree felony and premeditated murder	Evidence consistent with impulse/afterthought theft, not premeditation or forming robbery intent during killing	State: planning activity, motive, nature of killing (48 wounds, post‑attack conduct, cleaning, use of card) support both felony murder and premeditation	Court: Evidence sufficient for both counts; inferences support intent to commit aggravated robbery during killing and premeditation (planning, nature, motive)

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (establishes warnings, waiver must be knowing, intelligent, voluntary)
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (an uncoerced, understood Miranda warning plus subsequent statement can imply waiver)
Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564 (awareness of every possible subject of questioning not required for a valid waiver)
Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (police failure to inform suspect of outside attorney contact does not invalidate waiver when suspect unaware)
Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195 (Miranda warnings viewed in totality satisfy requirements even if some language might imply timing nuances)
State v. Beckman, 354 N.W.2d 432 (Minn. 1984) (failure to inform suspect of interrogation subject does not necessarily invalidate waiver if suspect was not totally unaware)
State v. Andersen, 784 N.W.2d 320 (Minn. 2010) (circumstantial‑evidence sufficiency standard and discussion of rational‑hypothesis test)