State v. Waiters, 929 N.W.2d 895

Ricky Darnell Waiters shot six times from his car in a bar parking lot, killing one patron and wounding another; two bullets were recovered (one in the victim, one in a driveway) and forensic testing showed at least one bullet passed through a privacy fence adjacent to a house on the lot’s western edge.
Waiters admitted shooting but claimed self-defense, asserting patrons had threatened him, one with a knife, and that he fired because he feared for his life.
He was charged and convicted of first-degree felony murder (based on drive-by shooting), attempted first-degree felony murder, and drive-by shooting under Minn. Stat. § 609.66, subd. 1e(a).
The key contested element was whether the evidence proved he recklessly discharged a firearm “at or toward” a building (required for drive-by shooting). Waiters argued he was aiming only at people, not a building.
Waiters also claimed prosecutorial misconduct for a rebuttal remark that defense counsel’s closing was “filled with emotion,” and raised pro se claims (discovery violations, exclusion of racial-derogatory evidence, and ineffective assistance of counsel).
The jury convicted on all counts; the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed after reviewing sufficiency, misconduct, and the pro se claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency: whether evidence showed reckless discharge “at or toward” a building for drive-by shooting	State: bullets passed through fence toward house; Recklessness proven by firing in direction of house	Waiters: he aimed at people in the gap, so fired near but not toward a building	Affirmed: evidence (fence perforations, residue, visibility of house) allowed jury to find shots were fired “toward” the house; intent to kill and recklessness are compatible (Vang)
Prosecutorial misconduct: rebuttal comment that defense argument was “filled with emotion”	Waiters: comment belittled self-defense, urging jury to ignore it	State: comment reminded jury to decide on evidence, not emotion	Affirmed: remark, taken in context, was permissible to refocus jury on evidence and not prosecutorial belittlement
Pro se supplemental claims (discovery, excluded racial-derogatory evidence, ineffective assistance)	Waiters: varied procedural, evidentiary, and counsel-performance complaints	State: claims lack merit	Affirmed: court reviewed each pro se claim and found them without merit; no detailed discussion required

State v. Boldman, 813 N.W.2d 102 (Minn. 2012) (standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Vang, 847 N.W.2d 248 (Minn. 2014) (intent to kill and recklessness can coexist; recklessness focuses on manner of firing)
Caldwell v. State, 886 N.W.2d 491 (Minn. 2016) (modified plain-error review for unobjected-to prosecutorial misconduct)
State v. Munt, 831 N.W.2d 569 (Minn. 2013) (evaluate prosecutorial comments in context)
State v. Matthews, 779 N.W.2d 543 (Minn. 2010) (prosecutor may argue a defense lacks merit but may not belittle defense in the abstract)
State v. Simion, 745 N.W.2d 830 (Minn. 2008) (prosecutor may point out attempts to distract jury from evidence)
State v. Johnson, 616 N.W.2d 720 (Minn. 2000) (examples of improper belittling by prosecutors)