State v. Vue, 2011 Minn. LEXIS 187

Vue was indicted in 2006 for crimes including first-degree murder for the benefit of a gang based on a 2001 drive-by shooting of Za Xiong and an assault on Hmong teens.
Police investigated Vue in 2005–2006, including interviews in Sacramento; Vue confessed eight minutes into a March 16, 2006 interview after previously being questioned in March 14, 2006.
Vue was living in California; police executed a search warrant at his Sacramento home and temporarily restrained him during the search.
Vue was transported to a Sacramento police station for a voluntary interview, told he was not under arrest, and could leave the interview, with the session described as noncustodial by the district court.
The suppression motion contested whether Vue was in custody, but the district court denied suppression, ruling the March 16 interview was noncustodial.
At trial, the prosecutor argued the defense’s statements were not evidence and Vue had lost the presumption of innocence; Vue was convicted and sentenced to life with parole eligibility after 31 years.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Custodial interrogation for Miranda	Vue asserts he was in custody during the March 16 interview.	Vue contends custodial interrogation required Miranda warnings.	Not custodial; no Miranda warning required.
Plain error in closing arguments – presumption of innocence	Prosecutor’s comment about losing presumption of innocence was plain error.	Error not plain under Young/Bohlsen context.	Not plain error; arguments not plain error given context, but cautioned to avoid such language.
Plain error – belittling the defense	Statements belittled the defense and inflamed passions.	Comments were permissible discussion of evidence and circumstances of confession.	Not prosecutorial misconduct; context showed permissible discussion of evidence.
Failure to testify comment	Prosecutor referred to defense arguments and not the witness stand.	Comment improperly referenced defendant’s silence.	Not prosecutorial misconduct; statements not reasonably seen as comment on failure to testify.
Sufficiency of evidence – 609.229, subd. 2	Statutory language requires proving intent to promote other specific acts.	Statute requires intent to further gang’s criminal activities when committing the act.	Evidence supports intent to further one of OMB’s primary activities; conviction affirmed.

State v. Bohlsen, 526 N.W.2d 49 (Minn. 1994) (misstatement of burden of proof; cautionary guidance on closing arguments)
State v. Young, 710 N.W.2d 272 (Minn. 2006) (closing argument burden discussion in context of presumption of innocence)
State v. Staats, 658 N.W.2d 211 (Minn. 2003) (custody indicators in evaluating interrogation circumstances)
State v. Wiernasz, 584 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 1998) (noncustodial interrogation under Mathiason guidance)
State v. Thompson, 788 N.W.2d 485 (Minn. 2010) (totality of circumstances in custody analysis)
State v. Chavarria-Cruz, 784 N.W.2d 355 (Minn. 2010) (independent review of legal conclusions on custody)
State v. Salitros, 499 N.W.2d 815 (Minn. 1993) (prosecutor may comment on evidentiary adequacy in closing)
State v. Starkey, 516 N.W.2d 918 (Minn. 1994) (prosecutorial remarks must not reflect personal opinion about credibility)