*1 Minnesota, Appellant, STATE AL-
Mohammed Gazizamil
NASEER, Respondent.
No. A07-2275.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Sept. 2010.
vietion but reversed the leaving-the-scene trial, conviction and remanded for a new concluding that the district court incorrect *3 ly jury instructed the on the mens rea requirement. (Al-Na State v. Al-Naseer I), (Minn. 679, seer 694-97 App.2004). After granting Al-Naseer’s review, petition for we affirmed the court appeals’ of leaving-the-scene decision but reversed the gross-negligence conviction because the district court failed to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of driving. (Al- careless State v. Al-Naseer II), 744, 750, Naseer 753 (Minn.2005). remand,
On after a bench trial at which he waived jury to a trial and his testify, Al-Naseer was found guilty and convicted of both criminal vehic scene) Swanson, General, ular Attorney (leaving Lori homicide Tibor and care Gallo, less General, driving, but found not Attorney guilty M. Assistant of crimi St. MN; nal Paul, Melton, (gross vehicular homicide Clay County negligence). and Brian Moorhead, MN, again Al-Naseer Attorney, appellant. appealed for to the court of appeals, which reversed the criminal vehic Merchant, David Appellate W. Chief scene) ular homicide (leaving the convic Defender, Roy Public Spurbeck, G. Assis- tion and remanded for additional findings Defender, Paul, MN, tant State Public St. respect to Al-Naseer’s mens rea. respondent. for (Al-Naseer III), State v. Al-Naseer 623, (Minn.App.2006). N.W.2d Both OPINION petitioned the State and Al-Naseer for PAGE, Justice. granted petition review. We the State’s petition. denied Al-Naseer’s but This a long complicated case has Ultimately, we held that in order for a procedural history. Respondent, Mo- guilty defendant to be found of criminal Al-Naseer, hammed Gazizamil initially scene), (leaving vehicular homicide charged with of two counts criminal vehic- required State is that the defen- ular homicide in violation of Minn.Stat. dant knew he had been involved in an 1(1) (2006) 609.21, § subd. (gross negli- accident with a or another vehicle. 1(7) 609.21, gence), § and Minn.Stat. subd. basis, On that (2006) scene), (leaving the as a result of a traffic accident that caused the death of of affirm[ed] reversal Clay County jury Kane Thomson. A conviction but to the district remand[ed] guilty found Al-Naseer on both counts and court to reconsider its verdict based on subsequently the district court present convicted record and to make amend- counts, him sentencing findings light of both him to ed in mens rea in prison. appeal, requires proof months On the court of standard that that Al- appeals affirmed the in- gross-negligence con- Naseer knew that his vehicle was rectly appeals. the court of decided accident with
volved in an constitution- reaching Al-Naseer’s Without another vehicle. challenges, al we reverse. (Al-Naseer TV), 734 State v. (Minn.2007). largely 688-89 this case are undis- The facts of in detail in Al- and are set forth puted on re- reconsidering its verdict Before TV, and will not II and Al-Naseer mand, parties court allowed the district necessary except here as for repeated brief, be. In his briefs. submit presented this resolution of the issues that, light of the new standard argued driving west on appeal. Al-Naseer was TV, he was *4 articulated Al-Naseer County his vehi- Highway Clay 10 in when trial his constitu- entitled to a new because fog the line and gradually cle crossed charges notice of the rights tional to Thomson, right who was on Kane opportunity a fair to de- against him and a flat tire. changing of the road shoulder be violat- charges those would against fend his Thomson was crouched down while factual find- made amended ed if the court friend, away a foot Leingang, Dustin stood existing record. ings based on flashlight. Thomson had re- holding a refused to consider these district court it placed the flat tire and between moved have concluding that it did not arguments, fog him line. As Thomson was and mandate on re- authority to alter our tire, spare Leingang felt putting on that there argued Al-Naseer also mand. past his hand with something brush support to his insufficient evidence was around, him heard a enough spin force to Al- finding that Specifically conviction. Thomson, thud, toward and loud looked in an knew he had been involved rolling on the shoulder of saw Thomson or another accident with in front of his vehicle. About 150 the road guilty of again court found Al-Naseer Leingang ahead saw Al-Naseer’s vehi- feet careless-driving and leaving-the-scene fog braking neither straddling cle line offenses. accelerating. gradually The vehicle nor again appealed leaving- his Al-Naseer way highway onto the and made its back conviction, and while the court of the-scene inju- Thomson died from his stop. did not there was sufficient appeals found ries. verdict, uphold to it also significant damage caused The accident to a that Al-Naseer was entitled found right headlight to Al-Naseer’s vehicle: the right constitutional new trial because his working, the damaged stopped was and by violated the district process due was crum- right front corner of the vehicle failure to conduct a new trial. court’s pled, pieces and of debris were scattered (Al-Naseer V), No. 07- State v. Al-Naseer nearly feet from along highway for 125 2275, (Minn.App.2009). WL an According the accident. accident- review, petitioned challeng- for The State of the expert, impact reconstruction ing appeals’ grant the court of of a new of the flat dragging accident and the tire process, trial based on the denial of due vehicle and caused a loud likely jolted the challeng- cross-petitioned, Al-Naseer noise. ing sufficiency of the evidence. We spotted requiring police to de- A Dilworth officer granted petitions, both us (1) traveling approximately vehicle termine: convic- Naseer’s whether Al-Naseer’s scene, evidence; six miles from the accident about supported by tion was sufficient (2) hour, lights an with its hazard constitutional 45 miles and whether Al-Naseer’s off, headlights both and its challenges properly flashing, heard and cor- were offi- stopped front tire flat. When must “be consistent cer, got hypothesis out of his vehicle and with the the accused is immediately damaged guilty went to the vehicle’s any inconsistent with ra- other difficulty front area.1 Al-Naseer had tional except that of guilt.” Bias, (1988). communicating English, but when asked State v. responded if he had been in an “Circumstantial evidence must form a something that, that he had hit but did not complete chain in view of the evi- whole, it know what was. dence as a directly leads so guilt of the beyond defendant as to exclude that, argues the evi any reasonable doubt reasonable infer- dence at trial was insufficient guilt.” ence other than Taylor, 650 leaving-the-scene conviction. In par N.W.2d at 206. ticular, Al-Naseer contends reasonable doubt exists because the evidence admitted recognize We the trier of the mens rea element of the fact position the best to determine *5 was circumstantial credibility offense and consistent and weigh the evidence. Moore, 360; with rational than hypotheses guilt. other 481 at N.W.2d see also State assessing sufficiency 393, (Minn.1998) the Hough, of the evi v. 585 N.W.2d 396 (“We dence, we review the to deter review bench trials the same criminal in jury mine “whether the facts the record and as determining trials when whether legitimate inferences drawn from them the evidence is sufficient to sustain convic tions.”). permit jury reasonably would to con We “will not overturn a convic guilty beyond clude the defendant was tion based on circumstantial evidence on a reasonable doubt of the of which conjecture.” offense the basis of mere State Moore, Lahue, (Minn.1998). he was 785, convicted.” State v. 481 585 N.W.2d 789 (Minn.1992). 355, jury’s N.W.2d 360 The State does not have the burden of if, upheld doubt, verdict will be “giving removing due re all removing but of all gard presumption to the of innocence and reasonable doubt. Hughes, State v. 749 307, (Minn.2008). to proof beyond the state’s burden of a N.W.2d 313 doubt, jury] reasonable [the could reason “When reviewing sufficiency ably guilty.” have found the defendant evidence, of circumstantial ‘our first task is Pierson, 784, State v. 530 N.W.2d 787 ” identify proved.’ the circumstances (Minn.1995). Andersen, (Minn. State v. 784 320 N.W.2d 2010) Stein, A (quoting conviction based on circum State v. 776 N.W.2d evidence, however, (Minn.2010) 709, stantial warrants (plurality opinion)). 718 Bolstad, heightened scrutiny. State v. 686 In identifying proved, the circumstances “ (Minn.2004). 531, ‘defer, N.W.2d This consistent with our height standard of scrutiny review, ened requires jury’s us to consider to the acceptance of the “whether the proof reasonable inferences that of these rejection circumstances and can be drawn from the circumstances of evidence in the record conflicted proved support a rational hypothesis proved by other with the circumstances ” guilt.” Stein, than Taylor, (quoting State v. 650 N.W.2d State.’ Id. 776 N.W.2d at “ (Minn.2002). 190, 718). words, In other independently Then we ‘examine functioning 1. The record not does indicate whether the whether it was the colli- before damaged, front area left of the vehicle was sion with Thomson. off, headlight what caused the left to be Rhodes, “[w]here, here, as holding that inferences that of all reasonableness circumstantial evi- jury verdict is based on from the circumstances drawn might be ” alone, the conviction warrants dence consistent including inferences proved,’ of review.” 657 higher standard guilt. other than hypotheses rational with Jones, (Minn.2003). our 716). Like Stein, at 776 N.W.2d (quoting Id. “ the fact merely in Rhodes reflects holding fact finder’s give no deference ‘We ” supporting that all of the evidence inferences.’ reasonable choice between circumstantial, a situation 716). conviction Stein, (quoting Id. “ by this case. Neither Jones presented not from inferences drawn assessing the ‘In precluding be read as nor Rhodes should inquiry proved, use of the test in cases which both leading inferences simply whether the and circumstantial evidence direct Although that are reasonable. guilt the conviction. convict, it must must be true order rea- that there are no other also be true reviewing That the test for incon- sonable, inferences that are in cases involv sufficiency of the evidence Stein, (quoting guilt.’” with Id. sistent ing applies circumstantial evidence more “ 716). because ‘if This is court of broadly suggested than circumstances found any one or more first-degree is most evident appeals guilt, or con- proved are inconsistent premedi requiring proof murder cases innocence, then a reasonable sistent with knowledge requirement tation. Like ” Id. at 338 guilt arises.’ doubt as conviction, leaving-the-scene “[p]re~ for a *6 J., (quoting v. (Meyer, concurring) State and, thus, is a state of mind meditation Johnson, 543, 545-46, 217 173 Minn. N.W. generally proven through circumstantial (1928)). 683, 683-84 Leake, 699 evidence.” State v. N.W.2d 312, (Minn.2005); see also State v. 319 appeals The court of in (Minn.2008) 307, Hughes, 749 N.W.2d 312 the circumstantial evi apply V declined to (“Because mind,’ premedita it ‘is state of Relying of review. on dence standard through circum ‘generally proven tion is (Minn. Jones, 545, 549 State v. 516 N.W.2d ” Leake, (quoting stantial evidence.’ 699 1994), explained heightened that the court 321)); 319, at see also Al-Naseer N.W.2d scrutiny only every when ele “controls (“The TV, proof at of 734 N.W.2d 687 required for conviction has been ment may by circumstantial evi knowledge be entirely by circumstantial evi dence.”). V, 304738, at 2009 WL dence.” Al-Naseer sufficiency of the reviewing for evi- *4. have never held that our test We Leake, applied height- sufficiency in dence in State v. we reviewing the of the evidence scrutiny premedita- to the element of ap evidence ened involving cases circumstantial tion, despite the fact that direct evidence only to cases in which all of the plies offense. did established other elements of the evidence is circumstantial. While we was sufficient to that “a en We held that the evidence say Jones conviction based “[although support evidence merits the verdict because tirely on circumstantial circumstantial, 549, it scrutiny,” at the evidence is is ‘consis- stricter 516 N.W.2d that the accused suggests hypothesis tent with the nothing there is Jones procured that he a knife application guilty’ i.e., that we intended to limit the of is — where brought it to Fisher’s bedroom only the test to convictions based “entire is ‘inconsis- Similarly, he stabbed her death —and ly” on circumstantial evidence. except any hypothesis v. tent with rational applied heightened scrutiny State
475 ” Leake, guilt.’ that of 699 N.W.2d 320 is insufficient the conviction. A Chomnarith, (quoting State v. 654 person guilty N.W.2d of criminal vehicular homi 660, (Minn.2003)); scene) 664 see also (leaving State cide if person, as a Wallace, (Minn.1997) 469, 558 N.W.2d 473 operating result of a motor causes that, (stating “[c]onsidering the in injury to or the death of another and light most favorable to the verdict and leaves the scene of the accident in violation circumstances, totality jury of the of his 169.09, § duties under Minn.Stat. (2008). reasonably only could conclude that subds. 1 and 6 Among other plausible inference to be drawn was that things, a conviction for criminal vehicular appellant scene) intended to commit a sex crime (leaving homicide requires the Lott”); against Ewing, State v. Minn. State prove that the defendant “must 436, 443, 904, (1957) (stat- have known that there was an accident ing that the “were that involved a person or a vehicle.” Al- TV, all consistent with the guilt of Thus, 687. for theory and inconsistent with the of the leaving-the-scene conviction to stand, defendant that the may victim have been prove beyond State had to car”). the driver of the Consistently, that, in reasonable doubt at the time of the Kolander, 209, 216-17, State v. 236 Minn. Al-Naseer had actual knowledge (1952), 462-63 we ex- of imposing facts a duty on him to stop; plained is, that the district court the State had to knew he had been in an accident with a
properly jury instructed the that “to TV, or vehicle. Al-Naseer finding guilty warrant a of on any N.W.2d at If 688. charged material elements of the crime proved are any consistent with based on circumstantial evidence the hypothesis other than guilt meaning a proven by facts circumstantial evidence — hypothesis in which other, must Al-Naseer did not they be consistent with each know he had hit a or a vehicle— must be consistent with the theory of *7 then reasonable doubt exists and guilt theory and exclude the Al-Na- of inno- cence, leaving-the-scene seer’s and must exclude conviction cannot every other stand. except reasonable conclusion that of the guilt of the defendant.” The evidence2 admitted trial added). Thus,
Id. (emphasis we conclude established that the accident occurred on a that appeals the court of it erred when warm, clear, dry and summer night. failed to apply the circumstantial-evidence p.m., Around 11:30 Thomson and Dustin test sufficieney-of-the-evi- Al-Naseer’s Leingang were traveling westbound on dence claim. Highway in Thomson’s vehicle. Ap
Applying that test proximately to Al-Na- half a Highway mile from the conviction, leaving-the-scene intersection, seer’s we con Thomson noticed one of his clude that the presented at trial pulled vehicle’s tires was flat. He onto the dissent, suggesting 2. The that we any dispute have im- conflict. Nor is there in the cir- evidence, properly Instead, conflicting treated proved. *8 him enough spin force to his left hand with fender, side damaged the front and that he degrees such around almost fog light. and light, marker facing opposite the direction. up ended passed vehicle over hit and Al-Naseer’s sharp that it was not a When He testified nearly flat tire that was from a the five-inch-thick strong have been a wind could line, fog and the the Leingang then between Thomson passing closely. vehicle likely bottomed thud, vehicle’s shock absorbers looked back toward heard a loud out, force and vehicle, jolting the vehicle. The and saw Thomson’s Thomson’s hitting vehicle the speed of Al-Naseer’s body rolling on the shoulder of the road scrape the gouge tire was sufficient to and He also saw a vehicle front of the vehicle. out from under asphalt on the roadbed. Once halfway fog that over the line was vehicle, popped up tire and 10. Naseer’s traveling Highway west on shoulder 10, where it remained Highway rolled onto According Leingang, that vehicle’s bystander moved it. The nor did until lights brake were never activated flat, lights went flashing. on Al-Naseer’s vehicle its hazard front tire When the offi- flat tire impact lights, to the with the cer likely pulled due activated vehicle. Other debris his vehicle over onto the right from Thomson’s shoulder of up immediately vehicle was scattered the road and got from Al-Naseer’s out and away. According walking to the testi- started to the to 125 feet front of the vehicle. if officers, several even a The mony police ap- of officer testified that when he it, impact Al-Naseer, expecting proached were try- Al-Naseer was jolt ing and the tire —the when the broken put headlight assembly Thomson position. bottomed out of into proper vehicle and the sounds its When questioned, crumpling breaking— glass metal and Al-Naseer indicated that he knew that he startling any- something, have been loud and had hit but would did not what know in Al-Naseer’s vehicle. he had hit. one evidence, trial, the cir-
Notwithstanding presented this Based on the evidence at that proved include evidence court cumstances district found that Al-Naseer vehicle did to either must known Al-Naseer’s not react have he hit and Thomson vehicle, actual Lein- impending impact. Thomson’s was therefore (leav- testimony Al-Na- gang’s guilty established that of criminal vehicular homicide scene). accelerate, ing vehicle did not brake or reviewing seer’s these find- highway. returning ings, identify even to the we must first while the circum- testimony proved, There was also that skid marks stances and then independently at the accident scene would have indicated consider might inferences that be accelerating circumstances, on braking, swerving, or drawn from those to deter- vehicle, part any of Al-Naseer’s but there were mine if are there rational inferences leading up no marks either to or than skid consistent with other Despite the scene of the leaving impact. guilt namely, whether the circumstances — and feel of and the impact proved support
the noise that inference illumination Thomson’s other Al-Naseer not know he in an did was roadway gradually returning than accident that involved a or vehicle feet, he failed stop. after 150 there was no reaction the time See Ander- officers, sen, Stein, police (citing vehicle. Two at 329-30 Al-Naseer’s 716 (plurality opinion)). one of whom was the accident reconstruc- 776 N.W.2d at tionist, was con- testified the evidence The circumstances are asleep at the being sistent with Al-Naseer stopped Thomson’s vehicle was on the impact. the officers time of One of headlights, shoulder of road with the have been also testified there could light, lights trunk both rear hazard reasons for failure to various Al-Naseer’s vehicle illuminated. drifted impact react to the of the one of at a slight angle from the road toward which that Al-Naseer have been could Thomson, hit Thomson and but did not or otherwise *9 asleep unconscious Leingang or come into direct contact with time of the accident. vehicle. Thomson’s Al-Naseer’s vehicle
Finally, the
that
evidence at trial established
also
the tire
was behind Thomson.
shortly
evening,
likely
after
tire
caused
p.m.
Hitting
that
11:30
that
the
Al-Naseer’s
out,
police
Al-Na-
absorbers
spotted
Dilworth
officer
vehicle’s shock
to bottom
Highway
jolt.
loud noise and a
The
travelling
creating
seer’s vehicle
west on
impact
six
accident
with Thomson and the tire caused
about
miles from the
tire,
scene,
headlights,
damage
a flat
and
to the front
side
significant
with
no
those circum-
to be drawn from
inference
impact,
After the
Al-Naseer’s vehicle.
of
in-
proved
circumstances
of
stances.
on the shoulder
came to rest
Thomson
which it could be rea-
evidence from
clude
his own
in front of
25 feet
the road about
that Al-Naseer was
sonably inferred
high-
on the
up
ended
the tire
vehicle
when his
asleep or otherwise unconscious
vehi-
traffic. Al-Naseer’s
way in a lane of
Thus, on the ele-
hit Thomson.
vehicle
forward, drifting
traveling
cle continued
scienter,
the circumstances
ment of
the road to-
of
the shoulder
further onto
with a rational
are consistent
in front of
150 feet
About
the ditch.
ward
is,
guilt,
than
Al-Naseer
other
site,
vehicle made
Al-Naseer’s
impact
unconscious at
asleep or otherwise
highway
toward
gradual
shift back
would
and therefore
time of the accident
lane,
traffic
with-
to the
and returned
hit a
or
known that he had
not have
being activated or
lights
out the brake
a vehicle.
ve-
to accelerate.
appearing
approaching
marks either
no skid
hicle left
an inference
contends that
The State
If Al-Na-
accident scene.
leaving the
or unconscious
asleep
that Al-Naseer was
mirror after
into his rearview
seer looked
of the accident is inconsistent
at the time
vehicle,
headlights
Thomson’s
passing
because
with the
likely
would
have
vehicle
of Thomson’s
have
jolt of the accident would
noise and
traveling several miles
him. After
blinded
driver. The State
sleeping
alerted even a
10, Al-Naseer was
along Highway
that,
further
due to the noise and
further contends
officer.
by
tire,
a law enforcement
pulled over
Al-
jolt
hitting Thomson and the
of
his vehicle and ex-
immediately exited
He
must have known he had been
Naseer
front-right portion of
damaged
argues
Finally,
amined the
the State
“impact.”
an
police
to the
He admitted
time of
asleep
his vehicle.
if he was
even
something,
he had hit
impact,
that he knew
Al-Naseer was conscious
officer
impact
what he had hit.3
after the
and would have
shortly
but did not know
mirror when
Thomson in his rearview
seen
must have known that
That Al-Naseer
awoke,
realizing that he had hit
thereby
he
vehicle is a
hit Thomson or Thomson’s
he
or Thomson’s vehicle.
Thomson
inference,
guilt,
consistent
reasonable
unreasonable,
inferences
not
the circumstances While
drawn from
be
by
only
are not the
rea-
drawn
the State
only
But it
not the
reasonable
proved.
is
prove that
operation of his vehicle” also
state-
3.
asserts
that Al-Naseer’s
The dissent
pulled
police
knowing
who
him
he hit
to the
officer
the scene
ment
Al-Naseer
left
over,
from the accident
scene
supported
six miles
"something.”
That assertion is not
later, proves
Al-
perhaps
minutes
ten
question
proved. The
the circumstances
knowing he hit "some-
Naseer
left the scene
headlights
car
on Al-Naseer’s
not when
thing.”
incorrect. Al-Na-
That assertion is
working
opera-
stopped
or when the vehicle’s
he had hit
to the officer —that
seer’s statement
changed,
realized
tion
but when Al-Naseer
"something”
he left
—does
things
happened,
had
and when Al-
those
something.
knowing
is no
he hit
There
scene
things necessarily
realized that
those
be
from which it can
evidence in
record
"something.”
no
he had hit
There is
meant
had hit
realized he
inferred when
point.
on
evidence in the record
this
most,
something.
from
At
it can be inferred
Thus,
the scene
the fact that Al-Naseer
left
proved that sometime be-
something
a cir-
knowing
had hit
is not
he
got
vehicle and went
out of his
fore
proven by
operational
the lack of
cumstance
fender,
damaged right
realized he
change
operation
headlights,
in the
something.
had hit
statements
Naseer’s
or Al-Naseer’s
*10
Similarly,
the loss of
the dissent asserts that
police.
change in
headlights
and "the noticeable
sonable inferences
be drawn from the Naseer would not have
and,
seen Thomson
accident,
proved.
circumstances
After the
even if immediately aware that he had
vehicle
did not react to either
accident,
been in an
he would not have
jolt
the noise or
of the impact;
it did not known the nature of the accident. After
swerve, brake,
accelerate,
or
but rather
impact,
body
Thomson’s
would have
past
drifted
Thomson’s vehicle along the
moving
been
slower than Al-Naseer’s vehi-
feet,
shoulder of the road for another 150
cle, and thus
body
Thomson’s
was first to
gradually
and then
returned
high-
to the
the side of and then behind Al-Naseer.
way.
circumstances,
From these
it can be Further, Al-Naseer would not have seen
reasonably inferred that Al-Naseer was
Thomson in
because,
his rearview mirror
asleep or otherwise
unconscious
as one investigating
testimony
officer’s
in-
time of the impact and at
the earliest
dicates,
glare
from Thomson’s vehicle’s
regained
awoke or
shortly
consciousness
headlights would have obscured Al-Na-
before his vehicle began
gradually
re-
Thus,
seer’s vision.
it can be inferred that
turn
highway.
awakening
Before
or
Al-Naseer would have seen nothing more
consciousness,
regaining
Al-Naseer would
than
bright lights
of a vehicle sitting
not have known that he
in an
accident.
on the side of the road behind him and
Nor
necessarily
would he
have been aware
would not have been able to see what had
jolt
of the
impact.
noise and
of the
taken place behind him. Even if these
consciousness,
Upon regaining
Al-Na-
circumstances,
proved,
as
establish that
likely
seer
recognized
would have
at some
may
have known that there had
point
headlights
his vehicle’s
were not
accident,
been an
they do not establish
working properly and that
the vehicle’s
that he necessarily would have known that
handling
changed
had
dramatically be-
he had been in an accident with a person
but,
cause of the flat
stopping
tire
short of
or a
opposed,
vehicle—as
example,
for
checking,
he would not have known
deer,
hitting a
sign,
pothole—
road
or a
that a flat tire was the cause of the han-
an element of
charged
dling problem.
It can also
offense that the
be inferred
that,
from
proved
required
the circumstances
State was
upon
beyond a rea-
consciousness,
waking up
regaining
or
sonable doubt.4
dissent, adopting
4. The
position,
police
the State’s
officer Al-Naseer knew that he had hit
challenges the
something,
reasonableness of our conclu-
the record does not indicate when
necessarily
sion that Al-Naseer did not
know
something.
first knew that he had hit
he was in an
only
accident with
Ac-
Thomson.
evidence in the record as to what Al-
dissent,
cording to the
our conclusion is that
Naseer knew about what he had hit was his
proved support
“the circumstances
police
statement to the
officer that he did not
before,
hypothesis
during,
and after the
know what he had hit. Given the silence in
accident,
nothing.”
Al-Naseer saw and heard
respect
the record with
to what Al-Naseer
saw, heard,
saw,
This is an inaccurate characterization of our
and knew and when he
heard,
it,
conclusion. Our conclusion that the circum-
and knew and the evidence that Al-
proved support
stances
a rational
asleep
Naseer could have been
or otherwise
guilt
other than
does not rest on the fact that
unconscious at the time of the
"before, during, and
after
accident Al-
Al-Naseer knew that he had hit a
or a
Rather,
nothing.”
Naseer saw and heard
only
our
vehicle is not the
reasonable inference to
conclusion rests on the fact that the
proved.
be drawn from the circumstances
establishing
in the record
way,
Put
another
preclude
before us
preclude
does not
inferences
do not
the reasonable inference that
that Al-Naseer did not know what he had hit.
Al-Naseer did not know that he had hit
Thompson
While the record does indicate that at the
his vehicle
the time he left
stopped by
time Al-Naseer was
the Dilworth
the scene of the accident.
*11
what he
have known
he would not
the in-
discredit
attempts to
The State
damage to some-
if
of
not know what
hit. Even
evidence
AI-Naseer did
ference
that it is
exist-
by arguing
person
than a
or vehicle
thing other
hit as unreasonable
he
Citing
ed,
State
speculation.
Al-Naseer’s sub-
on
it would not establish
based
(Minn.2008),
Tscheu,
left the
knowledge
at the time he
jective
to a ver-
challenge
that a
*12
Here,
at 688-89.
the circum-
I.
proved permit
stances
a number of reason-
To establish criminal vehicular homicide
inferences, including
able
inferences that
(leaving
scene),
required
State was
support
the conclusion that Al-Naseer
that Al-Naseer knew he
in
was
person
knew
he had hit a
or a vehicle volved in an accident with
person
and inferences that
the opposite
(Al-
another vehicle. State v. Al-Naseer
TV),
conclusions, i.e.,
(Minn.
that Al-Naseer did not
dant point must evidence the record is consistent with a theory rational STRAS, J., not having been a member other than guilt. Id. at 858. But inconsis of this court at argument the time of the tencies in the State’s case or possibilities submission, part took no in the of innocence do require reversal of a consideration or decision of this case. jury verdict so long as the circumstances proved make such theories seem unreason GILDEA, Chief Justice (dissenting). Finally, able. Id. in identifying the cir I respectfully majority dissent. The re- cumstances proved, we construe conflicting verses Al-Naseer’s conviction because it in a light most favorable to the concludes that verdict. Id. are hypothesis consistent with a rational The circumstances proved in this case specifically,
innocence that “Al-Naseer did are as follows. Around p.m. 11:30 on a not know what he had hit when he left the warm, clear, dry summer Al- night, view, scene of my the accident.” In the Naseer’s vehicle struck Thomson and the only supported by the lying flat tire on the shoulder of the road. reasonable inferences drawn from the cir- loud, impact jolting, and caused cumstances is that Al-Naseer must significant damage to Al-Naseer’s vehicle. have known he was in an accident with Thomson’s flat tire caught under Al-Na- another vehicle. I would also reverse seer’s gouging asphalt roadbed appeals’ court of conclusion that Al-Na- popping up and then and rolling onto process seer’s to due Highway was violated. 10. Debris from the accident 5. Because we process reverse Al-Naseer’s conviction reach the due issues raised evidence, based on the lack of sufficient Naseer. to, not, have no occasion and therefore do proved also from the circumstances nearly drawn highway for along the
was scattered hypothesis of innocence: *13 a rational support vehi- Al-Naseer’s impact of feet. The had hit know what he did not and “Al-Naseer of his shoes out knocked Thomson cle In accident.” scene of the he left the Carlo when parked Monte against him his threw conclusion, con- majority of its support body dented that his such force with infer three reasonably can that one to rest 25 tends coming door before driver’s side the circumstances facts from significant There Carlo. of the Monte feet front First, asleep that Al-Naseer was proved. leading up to or leav- marks no skid were impact. at the time of or unconscious the accident. Within ing the scene of Second, without be- however, that Al-Naseer awoke Al-Naseer impact, feet of the jolting collision. loud and ing aware of the the road vehicle back onto to steer his had Third, discovered on that when Al-Naseer ditch. heading toward the he was because damaged vehicle visibly that his awakening longer opera- had no Al-Naseer’s vehicle shoulder, guided highway was on was a dramatic headlights and there tional highway without back onto the his vehicle of his vehicle due operation in the change there- mirror and looking in his rearview At that point, front tire. to a flat illuminated, place of what had taken fore was unaware headlights were Carlo Monte effect, majority holds him. body lay 25 behind Thomson’s open, the trunk was from the Carlo, inferences drawn Lein- that reasonable the Monte and in front of feet a rational proved support near the rear of standing was gang before, during, and after that knew Although Al-Naseer Carlo. Monte and heard saw “something,” as an accident with he was in disagree. I nothing.1 head- by operational lack of evidenced change opera- in the the noticeable lights, majority gleans The conclusions the vehicle, subsequent and his of his tion while theo- proved, the circumstances from Al-Naseer drove police, statements not reason- retically simply are possible, Finally, as away stopping. without proved do not The circumstances able. him, quickly police approached inference that support a reasonable dislodged right place his vehicle’s tried aware of the being without Naseer awoke into its socket. headlamp back dragging the flat tire noise caused loud vehicle. It is not reasonable cir- under his majority concedes that these The im- asleep, that Al-Naseer remained a reasonable infer proved support cumstances jolt- until the loud or unconscious guilt: paired, “Al-Na- consistent with inference sound of subsequent and the ing impact hit Thomson have known that he seer must had Nonetheless, under his vehicle dragging the flat tire or Thomson’s vehicle.” conviction, subsided, suddenly awoke but then fully majority reverses his car back onto the just in time to steer inferences concluding that the reasonable consciousness, regained his vehicle my disagrees character- Naseer majority 1. The holding. majority working properly headlights asserts were not ization of its that changed that its conclusion handling had dramati- "the vehicle’s hypothesis of inno- proved support a rational cally tire." Under these because of the flat that the circumstances rests on the fact cence circumstances, reasonably con- one cannot preclude that Al- proved do not inferences know, the mo- Al-Naseer did not clude that major- what he hit. The did not know regained and steered ment he consciousness ity “the record does not indi- contends that dramatically mishandling vehicle back his that he had first knew [Al-Naseer] cate when vehicle had hit highway, that his onto the Yet, majority something.” con- as something. cedes, when Al- demonstrates the record only hypothesis supported by like- The circumstances highway. inference reasonable inferences drawn from the cir- reasonable wise do cumstances Al-Naseer must did not look his rearview that Al-Naseer have known he was accident with anoth- the scene of the leaving mirror before specifically, er Thomson’s contrary common sense It is accident. vehicle— driver, only object which was the there and which that a who discovers on and reason parked, headlights, with illuminated significantly visibly awakening highway on the shoulder of the rural toward the damaged heading vehicle is *14 feet behind Al-Naseer. dark, in would headlights without the ditch reflexively try identify object the not majority The concedes that the head- damaged that struck and his vehicle. lights of Thomson’s vehicle in were visible Al-Naseer’s rearview mirror. Neverthe- view, inferences my the reasonable less, majority pres- the contends that the from the circumstances that one can draw ence of Thomson’s vehicle was insufficient did not proved are as follows. Al-Naseer to inform Al-Naseer that he must hit have see Thomson or the flat tire as he traveled presence another vehicle because the of a vehicle because Al-Na- toward Thomson’s vehicle on the side of the road did not rule asleep, impaired, seer was or unconscious possibility out the that Al-Naseer hit impact. at the time of the loud When something person that was not a or a Al-Naseer, he heard jolting impact woke proved vehicle. But the do dragging the sound of the flat tire under presence any reflect the other ob- vehicle, change he felt a noticeable his ject. if example, For the circumstances vehicle, he operation the of his observed proved damaged included a road a sign, longer headlights, that vehicle no had his gaping pothole, presence or the of a and discovered that his vehicle was travel- animal, might agree wounded I that ing highway on the shoulder. Al-Naseer presence of Thomson’s vehicle on the side just something. knew his vehicle had hit possibility of the road does not rule out the identify object by In an effort to struck something that Al-Naseer hit that was not consciously steered his his vehicle or as he a or a vehicle. But the circum- onto vehicle from the shoulder back proved stances do not include such facts.2 highway, Al-Naseer looked in his rearview facts, that a only mirror. The observable item In the absence of such conclu- not know what he explain impact could was a lone motor sion that Al-Naseer did headlights, hit he left the scene of the illuminated had when highway. simply “pos- of a rural reflects a theoretical parked on the shoulder accident done, object that Cognizant sibility” of what he had struck Al-Na- not Thomson’s vehicle.3 police damage tried to conceal from seer’s vehicle was by trying caused to his vehicle do not set aside verdicts based on impact We headlight speculation, to return his to its socket. The even circumstantial evi- majority majority erroneously my argues 2. that even if the circum- 3. The asserts that analysis improper requirement proved presence of a adds an that stances reflected animal, provide support damaged sign, pothole, injured the defendant evidence to an or agree have what he of innocence. I that the State still would not known inference asleep proving he or unconscious bears the burden of all elements because may prosecutor not shift that impact. the time of the But the issue is not of a crime and proof at the of the im- burden of to a defendant what Al-Naseer knew time Gassier, Instead, State See pact. 505 N.W.2d the issue is what he knew innocence. 1993). (Minn. away But when the circum- when he drove from the scene of the guilt, proved establish circumstan- accident. stances Tscheu, See, claims. Al-Naseer asserts due-process e.g., cases. dence First, argues claims.4 he due-process 858. two that violated his to due State drawn from inferences The reasonable process complaint because the failed to support do not inform him of the mens rea element and after during rational successfully argued for in AlrNaseer he saw and heard IV, Instead, only hy- (adopting at 687 a mens nothing. by the reasonable in- pothesis supported knowledge rea element of that the defen from the circumstances ferences drawn in an with a dant was accident known is that Al-Naseer must have vehicle). Second, argues another with another vehicle he was an accident the district court denied him his I the scene. therefore would when he left it convicted him present defense when suffi- presented conclude that the State based on the 2005 court trial record. Al-Naseer’s con- cient evidence to *15 the requires The Due Process Clause for criminal vehicular homicide viction inform the of “na- State to defendant the scene). (leaving the
ture and cause” of the accusation. State v. II. (Minn.2006). Kendell, 597, 611 requirement The “nature and cause” rejected sufficiency- Having claim, I if “con- charging of-the-evidence must address his satisfied document support proved present tial evidence is sufficient to the defen- stances if in Al-Na- —which support seer's case would a conclusion other dant’s conviction unless proved are consistent with a rational than that Al-Naseer must have known he hit also simply why theory of innocence. The another illustrate well-established cir- vehicle— point proved a must the cir- are rule that defendant to cumstances Al-Naseer’s case proved theory a cumstances that he claims are consis- not consistent with rational of inno- theory required tent with a rational of innocence does cence. While Al-Naseer was not to require present present impact a a defendant to evidence of trial of an with animal, IV, adopted sign, pothole required innocence. In Al-Naseer or he was on his standard, person-or-vehicle appeal point proved re- which to to circumstances prove support quires the State to that the "driver must in his case that a conclusion other have known that títere was an accident that than that Al-Naseer must have known he hit person a or a vehicle.” 734 N.W.2d another vehicle. Because failed to involved Al-Naseer standard, identify any is not circumstances that are at 688. Under this State required prove exactly theory a to that Al-Naseer knew consistent with of inno- cence, long sufficiency-of-the-evidence what his vehicle hit as as Al-Naseer his claim object knew his vehicle struck an that must fails. "person have been a or vehicle.” As a matter logic, object by of struck Al-Naseer’s vehi- appeals 4. The court of concluded that Al- vehicle, person, right cle must have been another knowingly waive Naseer did not his to something person jury or that was not a or anoth- poten- trial he did not because know majority er vehicle. The testimony respect concedes that tial effect of his proved provided knowledge Al-Naseer a element. But we have stated that object right jury knowing- reasonable basis to know that a waiver of the to a trial is ly vehicle was Thomson or Thom- made if the defendant struck his "understands Thus, trial,” jury son's vehicle. if the circumstances basic elements of a such as the people jury, do not also a reasonable infer- number of on the that the defen- selection, object participate ence that the have been dant can in their struck could unanimous, something that was not a or another the verdict has to be if vehicle, right, judge Al-Naseer must have known he was the defendant waives this involved in an accident with a alone will decide his or her innocence. State Ross, 651, (Minn.1991). examples another vehicle. of circum- The descriptions present of the offense his or her tains such defense. Persitz, will enable State v. charged [a defendant] as N.W.2d 847-48 (Minn.1994) judgment plead (rejecting his defense and a right-to-present-a- make for the any prosecution in bar of further claim defense when the defendant failed to (alteration original). same crime.” Id. adequate make an offer of proof); see view, Richards, (same). met in this my standard is 194-95 case. court, In the simply district al- complaint identified Al-Naseer’s asserted that had he “known the state was of the leged (leaving conduct the scene required that he knew there was accident) alleg- and the statute June 2002 involving an accident a person or a violated, 609.21, § edly Minn.Stat. subd. may proceeded very differently. have 1(7) (2006). The information in the com- may jury may He have chosen a trial. He a lack- plaint enabled Al-Naseer to assert testify.” have elected to These assertions interpre- on his of-mens-rea defense based adequate do not establish an of proof. offer statutory language tation in Minn. of I therefore would conclude that the district 1(7). 609.21, § adoption Stat. subd. Our deny court did not requirement mens rea that Al- the stricter present a defense when it him convicted advocated belies his claim that the on the 2005 court trial based record. provide adequate failed to notice complaint presented Because the State sufficient *16 I for him to mount a defense. therefore Al-Naseer’s conviction that the did not vio- would conclude State and the did not State violate Al-Naseer’s due-process right to be late process, to due I would affirm Al- of the nature and cause of the informed Naseer’s conviction. accusation. every process requires Due also DIETZEN, (dissenting). Justice meaningful oppor- be afforded a defendant join I in the dissent of Chief Justice tunity present a defense. State v. Rich- Gildea. (Minn.1992). ards, 187, 495 191 aspect Al-Naseer contends that this of his I
due-process right was also violated. dis-
agree.
Although present witnesses constitutionally protected, the accused
is comply established rules of
“must designed to assure procedure and evidence Minnesota, Respondent, STATE of reliability both fairness and in the ascer- guilt tainment of and innocence.” Id. v. (quoting Mississippi v. Chambers THOMPSON, Edward Stafon 302, 1038, 284, 93 S.Ct. 35 L.Ed.2d U.S. Appellant. (1973)). proof proce- An offer of is the No. A09-1077. provides evidentiary dure that an basis for regarding presen- a trial court decision Supreme Court of Minnesota. Richardson,
tation of evidence. State
16, 2010.
Sept.
(Minn.2003).
If a
proof
inadequate,
defendant’s offer of
of evidence does not violate
exclusion
notes
cumstances
it is the infer-
"identifying
that when
ences
can be made from the evidence
proved,
conflicting
we construe
evidence in a
and the circumstances
that stand in
"
conflict,
light most favorable to the
give
verdict.” While
and ‘[w]e
no deference to the
the dissent is correct that we construe con-
fact finder's choice between reasonable infer-
"
flicting
Andersen,
light
evidence in a
most favorable to
ences.'
Notes
notes the State Although such evi- of the accident. scene “may on circumstantial dict based the reasonableness might weigh on dence conjecture” specula- or rely not on mere knowledge, it does actual of Al-Naseer’s not set aside do It is true that we tion. our review— focus of proper not affect the However, speculation. on verdicts based in this whether the in that a defendant clear Tscheu we made infer- with a reasonable case are consistent conjecture speculation or relying on is not ence of innocence. defendant, Al-Naseer does as when the in the record here, to evidence “point[s] in Al-Naseer made clear IV We theory a rational with is consistent not know what his person that “a who does Ultimately, Id. at 858. guilt.” than other a hit not on notice that he has vehicle is argument is with the State’s problem n. at 687 3. duty stop.” to 734 N.W.2d inferences to be reasonable that there are so, rejected argu doing expressly proved that drawn from guilty a was of leav ment that defendant every do not exclude to if had “reason ing the scene he/she is evidence guilt. that of There except a vehicle that the accident involved know” above, record, to as discussed IV, person. or Al-Naseer not know that Al-Naseer did the inference statute, Minn. leaving-the-seene 688. The Further, the evi- given hit. what he had 1(7), 609.21, a only imposes § subd. Stat. suggesting that in the record dence i.e., if the has duty stop person to knows — uncon- asleep was or otherwise hit a actual, subjective knowledge per —he Thomson, hit when his vehicle scious IV, son or vehicle. did not know what inference that he suggest that a driver at 688-89. To now the infer- hit reasonable. Because had is even duty stop investigate a to and has not know what he that Al-Naseer did ence hit, know what he though he does not the circum- had hit is consistent investi stop much that a failure to and less not based our decision is proved, stances knowledge lack of renders a driver’s gate conjecture. or speculation on as a mat what he unreasonable about that “the circum- The dissent states law, change from es ter of dramatic presence do not reflect stances holding affirm our tablished law. We object” pro- that would have any other of impose a new Al-Naseer IV and decline to be- Al-Naseer a reasonable basis vided if stop investigate duty on a driver not object his vehicle struck was lieve or aware that he hit a he is not pre- vehicle. On the record Thomson’s vehicle. case, additional evidence sented this of criminal vehicu- To convict Al-Naseer vehicle object other that Al-Naseer’s some scene,” the “leaving the bur- lar homicide inform the would not could have struck Al-Naseer, State, on the den was of Al-Naseer’s question answer to the reasonable doubt that prove beyond than the evidence knowledge any more in- knew that his vehicle was because, “Al-Naseer in the current record existing in an accident with or volved asleep the extent IV, 734 vehicle.” Al-Naseer time of the another at the otherwise unconscious