*1 result of the erroneous Obviously, as a evidence, there is a DNA
admission that there was sub- likelihood
reasonable verdict because ab- effect on the
stantial evidence, tying DNA evidence
sent the Sandburg’s murder was ex-
Schneider alone, That evidence
tremely weak. most favorable light
viewed support
verdict, is not sufficient Therefore, I would conviction.
Schneider’s
reverse. Minnesota, Respondent,
STATE ERICKSON, Appellant. James
Steven C1-98-1418.
No.
Supreme of Minnesota. Court
July ” " Salitros, evidence, of the trial.’ missibility ad- determination ‘[t]he DNA (Minn.1993) proceedings (quoting does I versary nature of obligation Justice, judge Special relieve ABA Criminal Standards initiative, appropri- (2d raising at all or her Judge 6-1.1 of the Trial Functions ed.1979)). manner, appropriate an mat- ate times significantly promote just which ters *2 Stuart, M. John Minnesota State Public Defender, Cromett, Michael F. Assistant SQQ Roseville, appeared restraint for securi- Defender, lant Public ty purposes. pellant. shooting death This case arises from Gen., Hatch, A. Atty. Robert A.
Michael approximately At Paul, Hjelman. Gen., Michael Stanich, Atty. Patrick Asst. St. *3 15, 1997, July 2:30 a.m. someone Austin, on Oman, Atty., County Mower A. Hjelman’s knocked back door of respondent. house, him and awakening girlfriend, his Hjelman went to see who Jessica Avarez. Avarez, there, opened was and door. bed, waiting four in heard three or gun: shots, say, him. and someone “Shoot Just OPINION gunshots seven more shoot him.” Six or BLATZ, Chief Justice. hid in clos- followed. Avarez the bedroom Erickson was Steven James Appellant minutes, et for five ten and then drove or murder, conspira- first-degree convicted police to the station. murder, and the cy first-degree to commit a.m. Police at the scene at 2:39 arrived was and sen- handguns, theft of three body Hjelman’s and found on the kitchen imprisonment. appeal, On to life tenced floor. been shot ten times from He had court erred he contends causing close 23 entrance and exit range, separate overnight allowing the exception wounds. of two defen- With also He claims during its deliberations. arm, Hjelman’s and sive wounds to hand contact with improper that the bailiff in and of all of the wounds were fatal and that the tidal court failed jury, Hjelman exsanguina- died themselves. hearing to determine appropriate an hold multiple gunshot wounds. due tion contact. Final- the extent marijuana Hjelman awas wholesale ly, that the trial court erred argues Avarez, Hjelman be- According dealer. restraint dur- ordering leg him to wear a a might have stolen appellant lieved that timely find- making trial without ing the marijuana, be- pound his worth quarter its justifying the record order. ings on had wit- Avarez tween and $350 $400. the trial court made We conclude that appellant an between nessed encounter over the course of serious errors several in which Hjelman dispute and over It allowed the this trial. to shake hands attempted appellant deliberations; it conducted a Hjelman Hjelman brushed but concerning improper preliminary hearing aside. bailiff and with- between the contact death, Hjelman’s During days before it present; and ordered out friend, Iverson, James appellant and at trial pellant wear restraint young partying people were several among findings justifying making timely 11, the July at a near Austin. On home in the instant case Athough its order. homeowner, Langstaff, gone on Paul singularly constitutes of these errors none stepdaughter, His Joi weeklong vacation. or out- requiring Schwartz error Larson, Lang- stay was instructed reversal, us their confluence causes right However, Lar- Mapleview. s son in staff justice, In interests of grave concern. July 12 with her home on son returned to this case but jurisdiction over we retain to drink. group of friends hearing to deter- it for a Schwartz remand not to drinking friends subject Larson told her were mine whether Neverthe- gun room. enter her father’s during their over- influences any outside less, and Iver- July on 12 or scope nature and separation, the night and, room jimmied gun lock to the son jury, with the improper contact the bailiffs house, opened keys using found appel- realized that and whether house, gun Appellant killing Hjel- safe. and Iverson stole Burback’s he described safe, Ruger from the .44 guns three her. man to revolver, magnum a nine millimeter Astra day, The next and Hansen Iverson went pistol, semiautomatic and a nine millimeter appellant. to Burback’s house to talk with Tech semiautomatic pistol, nine and Appellant suggested selling guns to an brought the guns Iverson’s house. his, both acquaintance wiped women July On Larson went Austin and into guns Appellant down with alcohol. spoke with Luke Renaux. Renaux told guns and Iverson took the to a farmhouse Larson that there hit” “$450 left them a cabinet for drug deal. Larson acquaintance, while Burback and Hansen and told turned home *4 Iverson appellant’s cleaned truck. worry, “hit.” told Larson to Iverson Police arrested the next Iverson morn- pulled appellant but then to warn aside plea He ing. agreement, entered into shaken, Appellant him. seemed and confessing killing to agreeing the and to pellant and Iverson went back to town to trial, cooperate fully. At he related in talk to Renaux. Renaux them that told detail how he appellant and murdered Hjelman appellant had the “hit” placed Hjelman. Iverson testified that after leav- appellant drugs because had from stolen house, Larson’s and he Hjelman. the guns trieved three stolen from Iver- afternoon, Later that went Iverson to house. They Hjelman’s son’s drove to Hansen, girlfriend, see his with Nicholle house, and it approached from the back. friend, appellant’s and Peter braced open Iverson the screen door they Watkins. Iverson told that Hansen Hjelman his and knocked. As opened Hjelman. were look going Appel- to for door, stepped the back Iverson and lant, Iverson, and Watkins to Iv- returned appellant began shooting Hjelman. At house, erson’s where and Iverson point, Iverson claims he blacked out guns they showed Watkins the had stolen and shooting gun. does remember his from Larson’s house. Appellant asked the shooting, appellant After and Iverson Hjelman lived, Watkins where and the to appellant’s ran back truck. by Hjelman’s three decided drive to house. house, they When past Appellant drove no one testified at that he was appeared Hjelman’s him, to be home so the three drove aware “hit” on but that back Still, to Larson’s house. he was it. unconcerned about conceded he realized that there would Larson’s, While at appellant and Iverson “[sjooner be a confrontation or later.” On Hjelman. discussed what to do Ap- about night Hjelman’s murder, pellant to talk Hjelman get wanted “to claimed be so drunk that he only had settled,” things and aso few hours later vague leaving party recollection of appellant and Iverson left Larson’s house Iverson and no loading recollection of in appellant’s Hjelman. truck to confront house, guns, going Hjelman’s shooting The two returned to Larson’s house two Hjelman, or returning party. later, hours dressed black. Both were quiet; appellant preoccupied, seemed and jury rejected appellant’s claims of talking Iverson was to himself incoherent- premeditation intoxication, lack of and ly- finding appellant guilty first-degree murder,
Appellant conspiracy called girlfriend, first-degree Lisa Bur- to commit murder, back, and Hjel- told her that he had killed theft of firearms. As the man. He asked was judge later another woman at about to enter the courtroom to verdict, the party give him a ride to Burback’s receive he overheard the bailiff house, saying he did enough not feel well a law telling clerk that the bailiff had to drive appellant got himself. When spoken jury during with the its delibera- it was not evidence. The foreman advising counsel of because tions. Without conduct, verdict had not looked judge took the told the bailiff bailiffs called previous then appellant. diagram night. He On his sentenced room, stated, informed into chambers and way both counsel of the the bailiff out possibly video,” them that the bailiff should “Maybe you review jury’s jury during contact with footage contained of the back of which sponte con- The court sua deliberations. Hjelman’s house. made no fur- The bailiff days la- inquiry two preliminary ducted a foreman and no ther comments ter, only the and the questioning bailiff conversations with the When other Appellant person- was not foreman. arrived, the foreman ex- ally hearing, counsel present at the but his plained to them the that the large reason questioned both witnesses. attended and was no in the room. diagram longer At hearing, bailiff related May 7 hearing, At the conclusion of the deliberating, while the fore- appellant moved a Schtvartz back large diagram man requested all 12 question possible im- Hjelman’s question house to answer a proper contact with the bailiff. The trial diagram about the rear of house. denied motion for a court *5 blowup requested by jury the was an exact hearing, ruling that further Schwartz 8 n ” by diagram of an 11” scale of the back duplicative. would be The court house, Hjelman’s with extraneous no subsequently issued a detailed order and diagram on it. The smaller information having that neither memorandum larg- had into The been entered evidence. jury nor large diagram the the room the extensively er while to diagram, referred jury comment to the foreman bailiffs objection, both at trial without sides prejudicial. the video were The had been entered evidence. not into jury the foreman testified that asked I. diagram it was large bailiff the because for trial court Appellant claims that the jurors hard 12 to see the smaller dia- allowing jury separate to erred the gram. brought diagram The bailiff the without his con- during its deliberations 9:30 jury into room 9:00 and the between Proce- Minnesota Rule of Criminal sent. consulting Accord- p.m. without the court. 5(1), in relevant provides dure foreman, ing to when the bailiff arrived the part: with the diagram, jury’s conversation already topic. to The shifted another the defendant the With the consent of discretion, jury’s stopped court, when the bail- allow conversation in its entered, during iff there conversation separate night was no de- jurors. speak between the bailiff the other shall not liberation. officers be- p.m. any juror until 10:00 con- jury deliberated or communicate with night. subject fore for the adjourning any connected cerning person to do permit any nor other trial Later, relayed jury’s re- the bailiff so, jury and shall return quest large diagram to the court. for the designated trial next courtroom large the bailiff that the The court advised session. diagram not and should evidence jury, knowing that not to the not given be rule, for a this it is error Under already given it to the the bailiff had jury separate to allow the trial court the defen during into deliberations without morning the went The next bailiff Sanders, 376 See dant’s consent. room before deliberations jury (Minn.1985). Still, 196, 204 new Only large diagram. N.W.2d sumed to remove only upon ex- will be ordered present. The bailiff the foreman was Id. at by the appellant. diagram prejudice had to plained that he remove 902
Prejudice be “shall presumed upon speak will show states court officers ing by any juror communi private the defendant of to or communicate with concern- any subject cations or contact or other circumstances connected in suggesting permit any person direct or indirect nor to do so.” jury tampering, “perva Although fluence or such as a court official’s statements on sive, publicity.” unfavorable State v. the merits of a case raise rebuttable Anderson, 70, (Minn.1985), 81 presumption prejudice, on review we denied, 2248, cert. 476 U.S. 106 will prejudi- S.Ct. still consider the nature (1986). matter, Upon a show L.Ed.2d 694 such cial exposed number it, evidence, ing, weight the state then bears the burden of and the presumption prejudice. overcoming likelihood curative measures were ef- Cox, Id. fective. N.W.2d (Minn.1982). 558-59 In case the trial court did not case, In this requested the foreman ask for or obtain consent to diagram Hjelman’s large house from the allow the overnight brought bailiff. The bailiff the diagram to deliberations, though appellant its even informing the court of his requested seques jury’s actions. After relaying request tered at the start of the trial. Without court, to the the bailiff learned that the informing counsel of its decision allow jury should not large have received the separate, the court announced diagram because it had been received decision to the at the end of its removing into evidence. When the dia- jury. Appellant’s final instructions gram morning, the next the bailiff com- promptly objected counsel to the court’s *6 pounded by telling his error the foreman decision and claimed that was con you “Maybe review should the video.” cerned publicity, about the case’s but the The foreman the later told other already court stated it that deter why large diagram the had been removed mined that sequestration unnecessary. jury the from room. The trial clearly court erred in allowing contact, Upon learning of the the trial separate jury the compelled court both the bailiff and the However, consent. failed to testify foreman to the as to substance of prejudice through perva- show of evidence However, their conversation. the court publicity sive inappropriate or other out- question any did not to deter- Further, jury. side on the influences the what mine the foreman told them about court cautioned the three the Although bailiffs statements. the bail- times to avoid outside Despite influences. improper iffs contact be determined appellant’s failure to make some beyond a doubt not reasonable to have prejudice, of arewe reluctant to conclude verdict, Cox, contributed to the see 322 that the trial sequester court’s failure to 558-59, at N.W.2d the mere fact of the was harmless because of the exis- improper contact deeply troubling is still tence of several other serious errors which in light multiple to us errors that also may impacted have appellant’s right occurred trial. Ware, to a fair trial. 498 Cf. (Minn.1993) (interests 454, N.W.2d 459 of Compounding concern our justice required syn- new trial because improper the bailiffs contact with jury, ergy questionable decisions the trial court conducting erred when judge). preliminary hearing on bailiffs state First, improper the bailiff not allowing appellant ments to be contact with the Rule at present Minnesota Minnesota hearing. Rule of 26.03, 5(1), Criminal Procedure 1(1), gives Criminal Procedure subd.
903
While a trial court’s failure
present
to be
at all
right
a defendant
justify
on the
timely findings
make
record
trial:
stages of
error,
restraint
is
we will
ing
need for
present
at the
defendant shall
The
still examine the record to determine
plea,
at
at
time of
arraignment,
whether the trial court’s decision to order
stage
including
of the trial
every
objectively justified.
restraints was
State
and the return of
impaneling
1,
(Minn.1994)
Lehman,
4
v.
N.W.2d
511
verdict,
imposition
(error in
ordering
trial court’s record
re
* * *.
sentence
straints was harmless as restraints were
the inquiry
that
argument
The state’s
objectively
Further,
justified).
any error
not a
of trial because it
hearing
stage
is
“is
ordering
prejudicial
restraint
not
hearing
persuasive.
is not
post-trial
was a
absent
knew
[the
evidence
Stincer,
730,
Kentucky v.
482 U.S.
739-
Cf.
wearing
defendant] was
the restraint.”
(1987)
2658,
40,
L.Ed.2d 631
107 S.Ct.
96
(Minn.
Shoen,
708,
v.
State
715
hearing
(distinguishing competency
as
1998)
Scott,
v.
N.W.2d
(citing State
323
therefore
proceeding” and
not
“pretrial
(Minn.1982)).
790, 792
as it
helpful
of trial is not
does
stage
case,
In this
court
the trial
ruled before
hearing’s direct im
into account the
take
wear
began
should
trial);
Grey,
v.
State
256
pact on
restraint,
stating
an unobtrusive
(a
(Minn.1977)
pretrial
N.W.2d
76-77
“substantially
the restraint
ham-
would
trial);
stage
suppression hearing is
further
per normal movement.”
court
329, 330-31,
Staveneau,
Minn.
law en-
“deferring
stated that
it was
(1924)
(judge’s answer
197 N.W.
regard
appropriate-
forcement with
jury entered delib
jury questions
after
restraint,”
made
ness of some form of
but
requires
presence).
erations
defendant’s
time
findings
no other
on
record at the
contact between
bailiff
After
trial was
justify
ruling.
prior to the
and the
occurred
render
entered,
had been
over and the verdict
judge’s
an
of the verdict.
Just as
supplemental
sua
issued
find-
sponte
court
jury’s
during its
questions
to a
delib
swers
ings
its decision to order
justifying
trial,
stage
is
erations
appel-
findings stated that
straints. Those
*7
tainting
jury
incident
which the
possible
lant was
in confrontations
involved
aware of before
verdict
court becomes
jailer
while in custo-
another inmate and
trial.
stage
is
As the
is rendered
also
dy, appellant
prosecutor,
threatened the
trial,
stage
preliminary inquiry was
verbally
aggressive
appellant became
insuring
by
appel
trial court
erred
during the
attorneys
and the media
hearing.
at
presence
lant’s
trial,
told a
mother
and
witness’
**
“get
f*
out of the courtroom.”
to
Finally,
court erred when
the trial
that
findings
court
in its
also stated
timely
record in a
it failed to state on the
invisible,
virtually
leg
was
did
restraint
ordering appellant
fashion its reasons for
noise, and
not need
any
not make
did
lega
at trial. Minnesota
to wear
restraint
Fi-
adjustment
walking.
normal
to allow
26.03,
of Criminal Procedure
subd.
Rule
nally,
found that
the court
2(c),
governs
use of restraints:
readily apparent signs that
“showed no
shall
Defendants and witnesses
in
of restraint” while
any type
was under
to
restraint while in
subjected
physical
jury.
front of the
has
judge
unless
trial
found
court
the thor
acknowledge
While we
reasonably necessary to
such restraint
oughness
trial court’s after-the-fact
security. A trial
of the
maintain order or
justify
failure to
restraint,
findings, the trial court’s
who
such
shall
judge
orders
record
ruling
timely
in
manner on the
record
the reasons on the
outside
state
required error. The trial court is
presence
of the
in
timely
in be certified
this court for
findings
make such
manner
inclusion
to challenge
order to allow a defendant
in
appellate
file
this matter. The
court
for
See
v.
reasons
the restraint.
State
findings
trial court
file its
within 90
shall
Stewart,
(Minn.1979).
51, 62
276 N.W.2d
shall
days
filing, appellant
of this decision’s
Still, appellant
allege
jury
that
did not
days
file his brief in this court within 15
could have become aware
his restraint
filing,
the trial
and
shall
respondent
court’s
trial,
at
and the record does not indicate
days
file its brief in this court 10
thereaf-
appellant’s
that
was visible to the
restraint
ter.
any
in
way. Although the court’s
proceedings
Remanded
consistent
for
ordering
initial record for
restraint was
opinion.
with this
insufficient, appellant
plead
has failed to
adequate
require
facts
a remand for a
STRINGER,
PAGE, J.,
and
J.
Shoen,
hearing.
578 N.W.2d
Schiuartz
See
concurring specially.
(defendant
plead
at 715
facts
must
making
prejudice when
out claim for im-
STRINGER,
spe-
Justice (concurring
jury).
use of restraint before
proper
cially).
Nonetheless, we are concerned While I
with the
agree
court’s conclusion
that the
cumulative effect
these errors
that
is entitled to a Schwartz
may
deprived appellant
have
of a fair trial.
hearing,
agree
I
that
do not
it is necessi-
prepared
say
While we are not
at this
tated
cumulative errors committed
any
trial
time
court’s errors
appel-
the trial
over the
court
course of
independently constitute reversible error
my opinion
lant’s trial.
In
court’s
requiring
hearing,
or error
we
Schiuartz
error in allowing
separate
over-
multiple
impact
conclude
errors’
deliberations,
night during
without the
in
should be assessed
order to
consent,
serious,
pellant’s
was sufficiently
ensure
to a fair
right
trial.
In
alone,
standing
require
for a
remand
justice,
the interests of
we therefore hold
Schwartz hearing.
is entitled to
receive
5(1)
provides
plain
Rule
purposes
Schiuartz
for the limited
simple
and
language: “With the consent of
(1)
determining:
whether
court,
discretion,
the defendant the
in its
subject
were
any improper
outside influ
allow the
overnight
ences
them
separation;1
night during deliberation.”
(2)
See also
scope
nature and
of the bailiffs
(Minn.
Sanders,
(3)
jury;
contact with the
1985).
rule,
court
violated this
whether the
appel
became aware that
separated overnight
on re
wearing
lant was
brace
security
majority
view
purposes.
jurisdiction
We retain
here the
cites our
of this
*8
case, ordering
completion
appellant
Sanders to
show
upon
require
of the
hearing
Schiuartz
court’s findings
prejudice in
to be
a
order
entitled to
new
715,
essentially
(Minn.1998)
1.
concurrence
(quoting
concludes that
N.W.2d
720
26.03,
5(1),
Larson,
violation of
(Minn.1979)).
Rule
subd.
automat
v.
484
ically
entitles defendant to a
hear
Schwartz
presumption
preju
As Sanders
that a
holds
of
Rather,
ing. That is not our current law.
automatically
dice does not
stem from a viola
per
presump
Sanders holds that there is no
se
26.03,
5(1),
tion of Rule
subd.
a defendant
prejudice
permitted
tion of
separate
when
is
requesting
hearing
after a
has
Schwartz
objection.
over a defendant’s
Sand
been allowed
the defendant’s
ers,
Although
is Sanders, only Through parent majority here is order- her and natural a Schivartz guardian, a new trial. It hearing, FAHRENDORFF, Russell inqui- petitioner, implementing step Appellant, is the first of the ry might as to whether a new trial I necessary would conclude —therefore that the Sanders holding placing the bur- HOMES, INC., NORTH d/b/a appellant prejudice den on to show is mis- House, I.T.A.S.K.I.N. guided. Respondent. Second, applying the Sanders holding No. C0-98-129. puts perfect “Catch 22.” is not entitled to a Schwartz Appellant Supreme Court Minnesota. hearing prejudice, absent a but Aug. Schwaitz hearing way showing prejudice. has no He can
only speculate improprieties as to have place
could taken while the
separated.1 requires pre-
Fundamental fairness
sumption prejudice to the en- to Schivartz
titling sepa-
where the has been allowed to 5(1),
rate in violation of Rule
and, contrary majority, in regard court’s error need
not have been embellished a Schwartz hear- justify
errors order to
ing.
PAGE, (concurring specially). Justice join
I special concurrence of Jus- Stringer.
tice *9 day upon I would another a violation oí Rule save for consider- based 5(1). requiring proof ation of the in Sanders prejudice predicate as a for a new trial