State v. Griffin, 834 N.W.2d 688

On May 10, 2011 Kristopher Miller was shot to death on his front porch; witnesses heard shots ~11:30 p.m. and saw a light-colored large sedan flee the scene. Police suspected Derrick Griffin based on motive (his wife Kim was romantically involved with Miller) and the presence of a white Cadillac matching Griffin’s car.
As Kim and friends left the Elks Club earlier that night, Kim said, “look my husband is over there stalking me again,” and confirmed the comment when asked; she later gave police a phone number associated with Griffin.
Police faxed an exigent request to Sprint/Nextel the morning after the murder asking for subscriber, call-detail, and location records; records showed the phone hit towers near the Elks Club around the time of the shooting and placed the phone later at Griffin’s girlfriend’s residence.
After arrest, police found a loaded .38 revolver at the girlfriend’s residence, a box of .38 ammo with five rounds missing in Griffin’s Cadillac, and a .38 round in Griffin’s pocket with class characteristics similar to the fatal bullet; forensic testing of the revolver was inconclusive.
At trial Griffin was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and first-degree murder by drive-by shooting; he appealed, arguing (1) erroneous admission of Kim’s out-of-court statement under Minn. R. Evid. 807 and (2) unlawful admission of warrantless cell-phone/cell-tower records.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Kim’s out-of-court remark under Minn. R. Evid. 807 (residual hearsay)	Griffin: statement lacked equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness (later uncertainty/repudiation, contradictions, biased witness, poor opportunity to observe) and was prejudicial	State: statement was spontaneous, made contemporaneously to acquaintances, confirmed by Kim when asked, borne of personal knowledge and probative of identity/motive; admissible under Rule 807	Court: no abuse of discretion; statement had sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness, was material and more probative than other evidence, and admission served interests of justice
Admission of warrantless Sprint/Nextel call-detail and cell-tower records	Griffin: had reasonable expectation of privacy in call-detail and cell-site records; no exigent circumstances justified warrantless acquisition; was a bailee of the phone despite subscriber being his girlfriend	State: Griffin was not the subscriber and thus a stranger to the carrier; he offered no evidence he tried to keep records private; Gail controls—no subjective expectation of privacy	Court: followed State v. Gail; Griffin failed to show subjective expectation of privacy (not subscriber, no steps to conceal); admission did not violate Fourth Amendment or Minn. Const. art. I, § 10

State v. Davis, 820 N.W.2d 525 (Minn. 2012) (totality-of-circumstances test for residual hearsay trustworthiness)
State v. Robinson, 718 N.W.2d 400 (Minn. 2006) (admission under residual exception where statement was voluntary, consistent, and not motivated to lie)
State v. Gail, 713 N.W.2d 851 (Minn. 2006) (no subjective expectation of privacy in phone-company records when defendant not subscriber and took no steps to keep usage private)
State v. Amos, 658 N.W.2d 201 (Minn. 2003) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings—abuse of discretion)
State v. Keeton, 589 N.W.2d 85 (Minn. 1999) (factors for evaluating trustworthiness under prior residual-exception analysis)
State v. Scruggs, 822 N.W.2d 631 (Minn. 2012) (trial court’s broad discretion on evidentiary matters)
Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) (burden on defendant to show personal Fourth Amendment interest)
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (GPS trespass decision; noted but distinguished from phone-record acquisition here)