State v. McCormick, 835 N.W.2d 498

On Nov. 6, 2010 Kevin McCormick confronted hunter J.B. at a raised metal deer stand; the stand then toppled and J.B. was injured and later died on Nov. 24 from complications of spinal and other injuries. McCormick was the only surviving eyewitness to the fall.
Witnesses heard a heated exchange and then a crash; some heard an apology afterward. McCormick gave varying accounts (911 call, police statement, reenactment video) saying he climbed/handled the stand and it fell. A business card of McCormick was found at J.B.’s cabin.
Medical testimony: prosecution experts attributed J.B.’s death to traumatic injuries from a fall on Nov. 6; defense expert testified the observed midday behavior was inconsistent with having already sustained fatal injuries.
At trial McCormick was convicted of second-degree manslaughter; the district court denied his motion for judgment of acquittal but granted a new trial because of prosecutorial misconduct (improper cross-examination).
McCormick moved to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds; the district court denied that motion, finding the prosecutor did not intend to goad a mistrial. The court of appeals reversed the denial of judgment of acquittal but upheld the district court on double jeopardy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (McCormick)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for second-degree manslaughter (recklessness & proximate cause)	Evidence (statements, reenactment, stand instability, circumstantial timeline) permits inference of culpable negligence and conscious disregard and that the morning fall proximately caused death	Evidence is circumstantial and admits rational, inconsistent hypotheses (accident, subsequent injury at second stand, intervening events); state failed to exclude reasonable doubt	Reversed conviction: evidence insufficient as circumstantial record supports reasonable inferences inconsistent with guilt; judgment of acquittal should have been granted
Retrial barred by Double Jeopardy (U.S. & Minn. constitutions) after mistrial granted on defendant's motion for prosecutorial misconduct	Retrial allowed because mistrial was defendant-requested and prosecutor did not intend to goad defendant into requesting mistrial	Prosecutorial misconduct was intentional and thus retrial should be barred (argued)	Affirmed: retrial not barred; district court’s factual finding that prosecutor did not intend to goad defendant was not clearly erroneous; Kennedy standard controls

State v. Al-Naseer, 788 N.W.2d 469 (Minn. 2010) (two-step analysis for sufficiency review of circumstantial evidence)
State v. Andersen, 784 N.W.2d 320 (Minn. 2010) (use of circumstantial-evidence standards and jury instruction discussion)
State v. Tscheu, 758 N.W.2d 849 (Minn. 2008) (rejecting unreasonable alternative hypotheses to circumstantial evidence)
State v. Frost, 342 N.W.2d 317 (Minn. 1983) (elements of culpable negligence and subjective recklessness for manslaughter)
State v. Johnson, 616 N.W.2d 720 (Minn. 2000) (state of mind proven circumstantially by words and acts)
Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1982) (retrial barred only when prosecutorial misconduct was intended to goad defendant into mistrial)
Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (U.S. 1969) (incorporation of Double Jeopardy Clause against the states)
State v. Fuller, 374 N.W.2d 722 (Minn. 1985) (Minnesota follows federal double jeopardy interpretation where appropriate)
State v. Schaub, 44 N.W.2d 61 (Minn. 1950) (proximate cause requires absence of an independent intervening efficient cause)
State v. Auchampach, 540 N.W.2d 808 (Minn. 1995) (state must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Simion, 745 N.W.2d 830 (Minn. 2008) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)