State of Minnesota v. True Thao
2016 Minn. LEXIS 95
| Minn. | 2016Background
- In Oct. 2013 a drive-by shooting outside Moonshine Saloon killed Adlai Xiong and wounded T.X. and P.L.; Thao was charged with first-degree premeditated murder and attempted murder counts committed for the benefit of a gang.
- Eyewitnesses and surveillance placed a dark blue Acura TL (Thao’s car) at the scene; cellphone location data, gunshot-residue on wipes and Thao’s car, and Thao’s behavior after the shooting supported identification.
- The State sought to admit (1) Thao’s 2000 attempted-murder conviction (a prior drive-by), (2) expert gang testimony from Sgt. Straka, and (3) other evidence tying motive to gang retaliation; the court admitted the 2000 conviction and the gang expert.
- The jury convicted Thao on murder and attempted-murder counts for the benefit of a gang; life without release for the murder and lengthy concurrent terms for attempted murders followed.
- Thao appealed, arguing: erroneous admission of the 2000 conviction under Minn. R. Evid. 404(b); improper gang-expert testimony under Minn. R. Evid. 702; and an improper reasonable-doubt instruction (court used language from State v. Smith rather than the pattern CRIMJIG). He also raised several pro se claims including ineffective assistance allegations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Thao) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of 2000 attempted-murder (404(b)) | Prior act shows identity, similar MO, motive (retaliation), and familiarity with disposal of firearms | Admission was improper propensity evidence or too generic; harmful to verdict | Even if erroneous, admission was harmless: limiting instruction, prosecutor did not dwell on it, and other evidence of guilt was overwhelming |
| Admissibility of gang-expert (702) | Expert testimony assists jury on gang culture, motive, shared guns, tattoos, and Thao’s gang history | Testimony was cumulative, speculative, and improperly influential | No abuse of discretion: expert added nonduplicative, first-hand context relevant to gang-benefit element |
| Reasonable-doubt jury instruction | Court used Smith-approved language (not CRIMJIG); State supports Smith language | Language ("speculation"/"irrelevant details") could improperly narrow reasonable doubt and shift burden | No error: Smith controlling; language read in context does not misstate or narrow the standard |
| Pro se claims and ineffective assistance assertions | N/A (State opposed) | Various claims: prosecutorial misconduct, failure to hire video expert, challenge cellphone search, defective indictment | Claims rejected as unsupported, premature, or without legal citation; no relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Smith, 674 N.W.2d 398 (Minn. 2004) (approved reasonable-doubt instruction language)
- State v. Spreigl, 139 N.W.2d 167 (Minn. 1965) (prior-bad-acts admissibility concerns)
- State v. Riddley, 776 N.W.2d 419 (Minn. 2009) (harmless-error test for Spreigl evidence)
- State v. Vang, 774 N.W.2d 566 (Minn. 2009) (standard for admitting gang-expert testimony)
- State v. DeShay, 669 N.W.2d 878 (Minn. 2003) (expert testimony must help jury evaluate evidence)
- State v. McDaniel, 777 N.W.2d 739 (Minn. 2010) (admission of generalized gang evidence can be helpful for motive)
- State v. Flores, 418 N.W.2d 150 (Minn. 1988) (use of pattern instructions is permissive; instructions must fairly state law)