*1 strеngth not questions raised serious that must focus on fingerprints, See, case, not known required e.g., States state’s which was inquiry. United (2d was v. 461 F.2d Cir. court when the motion made and Morrissey, 1972) which, trial, a claim (holding only defendant’s close of re- attorney did not meet with him or created flects record that was without required searching seek out witnesses counsel. assistance of defense The denying instead, for inquiry request focus, analysis on should whether counsel). new attempts in his Clark was effective self- representation. My review of the record majority suggests that Clark’s The expected, could be reveals Clark allega- not constitute “serious claims do by repeatedly stymied was his lack of ex- But, representation.” inadequate tions of He pertise procedure. in trial could not conclusion, majority reach significance assess of evidence present- inquiry no speculate because was made state, by proper objections ed present end, the majority In the relies record. evidence, develop meaningful to the state’s conclusion, apparent on the district court’s witnesses, cross-examination of the state’s basis, that “appointed record coun- without or present secure and his own. proper investigation, sel conducted a had trial, prepared thoroughly for Accordingly, I would reverse Clark’s had, fact, maintained contact with grant conviction a new trial. the district Clark.” Because court did inquire appointed procedure devise a claims,1 Clark’s the court
counsel about
had what investigation no basis to know had been conducted what contact The basis
been maintained. court’s performance knowledge
for was the hearing
counsel the Rasmussen and voir Minnesota, Respondent, STATE of dire, familiarity perhaps court’s cases, with counsel in other but neither of v. provide these information about the would HALL, Appellаnt. Andre Francis investiga- extent of counsel’s nature and tion communication with Clark. A05-1534. No. I conclude district court Supreme Court of Minnesota. by making its discretion abused claims; by searching inquiry into Clark’s Oct. 2006. only self-rep- choices to narrowing Clark’s representation by current resentation or
counsel; by granting Clark’s motion balancing
for self-representation without interests, including
all the interests of
Clark in effective of counsel. assistance of the district denial
On the issue court’s counsel, request advisory I Clark’s analysis harmless
conclude that the error 1984). See, (Minn. Eling, e.g., 1. 294-95
OPINION *3 MEYER, Justice. Hall appeals Francis
Appellant Andre 5, 2004, for the October his conviction shooting Winfield.1 A death of Dennis Hall Hennepin County found in first-degree murder violation Minn. 609.185(a)(1) (2004), § second-degree Stat. 609.19, § in of Minn.Stat. violation 1(1) (2004), being prohibited a subd. and in a firearm in person viola- possession 624.713, 1(b), tion of subds. Minn.Stat. (2004). 2(b) entered judg- The trial court first-degree murder ment of conviction on mandatory Hall to the term sentenced four prison. of life Hall raises claims on (1) erred it appeal: the trial court when gave a instruction on transferred (2) tent; intent instruction the transferred improper constructive constituted (3) indictment; trial amendment of the it court abused its discretion when denied (4) bias; juror to relating two motions public a right he was trial denied imposed court a blanket when trial exclusion from the courtroom.2 of children appeal to this giving The facts rise are sister, younger as follows. and her C.S. P.S., residing were with their temporarily sister,” A.M., “god apartment at A.M.’s Defender, Stuart, State Public John M. evening of Brooklyn On the Octo- Center. Winn, R. Assistant State Public Rochelle 4, 2004, ber rode a bus down- C.S. MN, Defender, Minneapolis, Appellant. for Brooklyn town Center. Minneapolis General, Paul, Hall, ex-boyfriend, Hatch, Attorney who A.M.’s was St. was Mike bus, Klobuchar, MN, County also on While on C.S. Amy Hennepin the bus. Richardson, Hall alcohol and overheard drinking Assistant saw Attorney, Michael MN, gun group to a men. Attorney, Minneapolis, trying for to sell County at the and Hall exited the bus same C.S. Respondent. years that the trial Although time of 2. Because we have concluded 1. he was 17 old at the offense, court’s instruction did not erroneous was certified trial as to stand and have amount to error remanded harmless an adult. trial, case we do not reach for new arguments. remaining Hall's three stop apart- “got jumped” by walked to bus both A.M.’s three and he said A.M., arrived, ment. When Hall C.S. words to the effect “going that he was P.S., present and three men were kill them.” Hall also two telephones threw apartment. had a A.M. noticed that Hall against eventually the wall and left thе put sight gun and asked Hall out of apartment, taking the him. gun with guns.” she “terrified of she Because did not know where Hall gun top of an put entertainment was going, go A.M. asked looking C.S. thereafter, Shortly center. A.M. and station, Citgo him. C.S. ran to the but gas station, approxi- walked Hall was not there. She told Winfield that mately one and one-half blocks from he should be careful because Hall had left apartment. bring Hall did not gun gun. and had a *4 Citgo the station. 911 to report called the That incident. call duty Winfield was the clerk on at the at was received 2:46 a.m. Citgo working station. He was in the Later, helped M.G. Winfield take some boоth, by protected cashier’s which was garbage outside station’s M.G., bulletproof glass. regular patron dumpster. M.G. testified doing .while station, present. at the also While was so, he Hall saw walk across the street to Hall to collecting and A.M. were items the area near the dumpster where he and purchase, alleged- Hall turned to M.G. and were, * at point pulled Winfield which Hall either, *ot, ly looking said “F* at quit gun out a and shot at Winfield least four my girlfriend,” ‘Why you looking are point range. times from blank According my girl?” point, argument At that M.G., when Hall shooting, finished Hall A.M. ensued between Winfield and Hall. scene, turned and ran from the and M.G. leave, refused, asked Hall to Hall so but . the went into station and called 911. A.M. apartment returned to her alone. call M.G.’s 911 was received at 3:14 a.m. left, Hall M.G. testified that after A.M. of multiple gunshot Winfield died wounds. bulletproof glass said to “This you.” shooting, isn’t After the Hall returned to [going] to save Hall also asked apartment, A.M.’s where told go they fight. outside so he P.S. and Winfield * C.S., *r,” “I that ni* or “I point during argument, got capped At some the Win- * * *r,” booth, field left the the that ni* or “I that ni* cashier’s locked killed *r.” station, gas “get gun, door to the and that Hall demanded asked C.S. rid of’ the but Hall return merchandise hold- police he was she was unablе to do so the before allowing able, before Hall to Hall leave. arrived Hall. Hall and arrested was merchandise, returned however, and gun wiped off have and unlocked and the door allowed Hall then hidden he was arrested. He leave. change also able to clothes. Dur- was ing a apartment search after Hall’s leaving, got
After into a fight with arrest, police gun, found a .40 caliber just number of unidentified men outside experts subsequently which forensic deter- the station. Winfield walked outside gun mined kill used to Winfield. they up told the men if did not break fight police, call the would trial, primary theory At the state’s the men point stopped fighting and left case was Win- area. angry field’s murder Hall was apartment with returned to A.M.’s about the altercation with As an Winfield. bloody argument, face told A.M. alternative the state advanced a C.S. hence, and, wholly suscep- subjective if theory, arguing that transferred intent may It proof by tible to direct evidence. with the intent left the all the circumstances inferred then he could be the unidentified It is neces- surrounding the event. found murder sary any exist for trial, At the end time. A specific length of jury that judge premed- instructed in a decision to kill be reached if could be found Hall itation еlement However, un- period short of time. a[n] cause the death of another. intent to impulse, though considered or rash trial, he was Hall conceded that During kill, pre- it is not includes an intent possession and guilty of the firearm meditated. charges, main- second-degree but pre- kill, murder was not tained that Winfield’s to have had an intent to order meditated. have acted must Defendant death, or purpose causing the Defen- We are asked to determine whether dant have believed that the act trial erred when instructed court result. trial, intent. At jury on transferred acted with If Defendant testimony from that when elicited A.M. tation with the intent to cause the *5 Hall A.M.’s from returned to another, premed- death the element of of time, the the first he was Citgo station satisfied, to kill is itation and intent angry fight he in with about the been the in- though even did not Defendant men. On cross-examina- unidentified Winfield, tend Dennis Lamont to kill tion, testimony the state elicited similar Jr. apart- returned to when Hall A.M.’s Fourth, act place the Defendant’s took fight about the with the upset ment he was 5, 2004 in Hennepin on or October about not angry but was about unidentified County. with altercation verbal testimony to that he did added.) elicited this show objected (Emphasis premeditate not murder. re- part inclusion of instruction testimony, sponse request- the state to this intent, dealing transferred with which given ed be a transferred reads, pre- Defendant acted “If the gave intent The trial court instruction. meditation and with the intent cause the on following instruction the elements another, of premedi- death of the element first-degree murder: satisfied, tation intent to kill is kill though the Defendant did intend to of murder the first de- The elements Winfield, Jr.” Dennis Lamont are, first, La- gree the death of Dennis Winfield, proven. mont Jr. argues trans- appeal, On Second, the death the Defendant caused inappropriate ferred instruction was Third, Winfield, Lamont Jr. Dennis (1) intent only applies transferred acted with Defendant if the intends commit perpetrator Dennis La- with the against person actually and then crime one person. mont Jr. another commits against crime an unintended (2) victim; there was no means that the Defen- evidence Premeditation considered, or intended planned, prepared dant men with whom he had to commit the act unidentified determined fought station. The committed it. Premedi- outside Defendant mind, tation, argues that there was sufficient evi- being process is state
477
kill,
support
appreciаble
passed
a transferred intent
some
during
dence
time
testimony,
consideration,
based on A.M.’s
struction
which the
planning, prepa-
* * *
the inference
be drawn
required
ration or determination
mur-
Hall intended and
prior to the
commission
the act took
”
of one or
men.
der
more of
Netland,
place.’
State v.
535 N.W.2d
(Minn.1995)
328,
(quoting
330
State v.
give
requested
“The decision
Moore,
(Minn.1992)).
355,
481 N.W.2d
361
jury instruction lies in
discretion of
court and
not be
trial
will
reversed absent
The doctrine of transferred intent is rec
Pa
an abuse of that discretion.” State v.
Sutherlin,
ognized in Minnesota.
v.
State
(Minn.2005).
lubicki,
476,
700
487
N.W.2d
(Minn.1986).
240
N.W.2d
That
A
is entitled to
instruction if the
party
doctrine,
law,
“derived from
common
is
trial
produced
supports
principle
that a defendant
be con
Richardson,
v.
instruction.
if it is proved
injure
victed
he intended to
(Minn.1986).
A
N.W.2d
mistaken
person
one
but
harmed
actually
another.”
require
instruction
a new
does
Henry
Nordby,
W. McCarr &
S.
Jack
if
trial
the error was harmless. State
Minnesota Practice —Criminal Law and
Kuhnau,
(Minn.2001).
552, 558
(3d ed.2001);
Procedure
44.8
see also
An
instruction is harmless
erroneous
Hough,
State v.
395 n. 1
if
beyond
it can be said
a reason
(Minn.1998) (“The doctrine of transferred
doubt,
no significant
the error had
able
frequently applied
intent is
cases where
impact
the verdict rendered.
Id.
person, but,
intends
kill one
accused
558-59.
another.”).
aim,
because of bad
kills
This
Intent
ei
“means
actor
public policy goal
is because the
of trans
purpose
thing
has a
to do the
or cause
ther
*6
ferred intent is to
actor culpable
hold the
act,
specified
the result
or believes that the
Wayne
for his intended actions. 1
R. La-
successful,
if
will cause that result.” Minn. Fave,
6.4(d),
§
Law
Substantive Criminal
9(4) (2004).
609.02,
§
to
Stat.
subd.
Intent
(2d ed.2003);
at 475
see
&
McCarr Nord
.
kill
from
inferred
the manner
§
by, supra,
44.8
killing.
Cooper,
State v.
561 N.W.2d
(Minn.1997).
175, 179
Premeditation
can apply
Transferred intent
to
consider,
to
plan
prepare
“means
first-degree premeditated murder.
See
commit,
determine to
the act
referred
Sutherlin,
Law doc Win- applied have transferred when he shot description. that in accordance trine field. Ford, 214, 219, v. 539 N.W.2d See State justify The facts of this case do (Minn.1995) in (applying transferred Here, instruction. transferred when, of shoot in the course tent doctrine was no in the record that there evidence officer, wounded a police defendant victim; was an unintended Winfield Merrill, 450 N.W.2d bystander); State deed, showing there was no evidence (Minn.1990) to kill (holding intent intended to kill Hall shot Winfield he when fetus); to her Suth mother is transferable M.G., except anyone Winfield. erlin, (holding de at 239-40 incident, testified witness first-degree premeditated fendant point blank and noth- shot Winfield through intent when murder transferred at the ing separated Hall from Winfield premeditated and intended the defendant shooting. time of the Hall also conceded accidentally of one man but shot intentionally at trial that he had killed Thus, in order for bystander). killed a giving Because our rule for Winfield. apply intent doctrine to the transferred requires transferred intent instruction case, Hall, in the actions that taking at the time of actions the defendant death, resulted Winfield’s person to kill but instead intended one kill and intended to someone accidentally person, killed we con- another accidentally than killed other Winfield but court erred when it clude trial instead. intent instruction. gave transferred instruction The transferred intent pre
permitted the to find concluded that Having they if be meditation element was met transferred intent was erronе instruction anyone lieved Hall intended to besides ous, we must determine whether error Although present evidence was giving instruction was harmless. pre trial that Hall had suggesting ed at is An erroneous instruction harmless toward based meditation that, beyond a only if it can be said reason juror presented a reasonable also doubt, significant no able error had *7 pre have that Hall had could concluded Kuhnau, impact on verdict. three and intent to kill the un meditation can consider the 558-59. We N.W.2d fought. men with Hall had identified whom argument to deter prosecutor’s closing Both the defense and the state eliсited mine an instruction had whether erroneous testimony indicating from A.M. when significant impact on the verdict. See gun left her with his he Olson, (Minn. 212, 216 State v. he angry upset was was 1992). men. In “jumped” by unidentified argument prosecutor’s closing The here cross-examination, fact, A.M. on stated emphasized jury conclude the earlier nothing that Hall said about that Hall Winfield’s murder Instead, A.M. tes incident with Winfield. he jury premeditat- if the determined that apart after at her tified that Hall arrived murder of men.” ed the “those unidentified ment, he repeatedly yelled he premedita- If Andre Hall acted with by and stated “jumped” three men been tion and with tо cause death kill 'em.” This “going that he was another, per- of the element of may have sufficient been though even in the on intent to kill is satisfied instructions the other similar sale to kill Dennis consideration.”). Andre Hall did not intend jury counts the had under you This instruction enables jury Because instruction allowed the by solicited the De- to consider evidence reach a of guilty verdict without finding by And that was some fense [A.M.]. every required crime, of element we retrieved suggestion Defendant held that the error not harmless. was Id. not handgun apartment, and left the Williams, In at 559. we reversed the intention to kill Dennis Win- criminal conviction because an improper field, but to kill those men jury instruction constituted a mandatory leaving gas him after jumped who presumption, relieving thus of state its station. proving of beyond burden a reasonable way, gentlemen, Either ladies and every doubt charged element of the crime. reads, with that instruction he if left (Minn.1982). In N.W.2d Ol- thinking was intent and about it before son, we held that a trial court erroneously acted, though actually the ulti- jury “permissive instructed the on a infer- target pre- mate was Dennis ence,” namely jury could infer premedita- meditation —the element of possession knowing of a controlled sub- tion is satisfied. оn certain stance based facts evidence. added.) The erroneous instruc- (Emphasis at 215. In applying the harm- tion, particularly light when of viewed case, analysis less error in that we said: prosecutor’s closing argument, “Although probably defendant would have jury structed the did have event, any been convicted we cannot that Hall premeditated find beyond conclude a reasonable doubt that been murder. The verdict could have any he would have been convicted in murder an- based “of event.” Id. 216. In allowing jury other.” find first-degree premeditated of guilty require The facts of this case same finding without at trial that he conclusion. conceded murder, actual was relieved of its state second-degree was intentional proving premeditation beyond burden of a murder; only element state had to reasonable doubt. of premeditation. was the prove element' consistently held when
We Because the transferred instruction erroneous instruction eliminates re- directly pre- pertained the element quired type element the crime meditation and because that instruction re- beyond a error is not harmless reasonable its to find that obligation lieved Kuhnau, we held that а doubt. satisfied, of premeditation the element was conspiracy instruction on to commit the the instruction More- harmless. *8 of crime of a controlled sale substance over, although there was evidence that when the court did not include in the error murder, Winfield’s we language requiring instruction the beyond cannot a reasonable conclude “knew or that the sub- defendant believed have been convicted doubt 622 stance was a controlled substance.” first-degree premeditated of murder with- (holding at 558 that the instruction N.W.2d out erroneous transferred the require not was erroneous because “did struction. jury to find all of the same elements of the for a new trial. the that were contained Reversed and remanded substantive crime 480 (1) activity, for exam- planning
PAGE, meditation: (dissenting). Justice regarding how or when the ple, evidence reversing In dissent. respectfully I weap- the retrieved or obtained defendant conviction, court concludes that Hall’s “ (2) evidence, is, ‘facts on; motive instructing trial court’s error prior relationship the defendant’s about not intent was harm- jury on transferred victim from which and conduct with the of its it relieved the state less (3) evi- may be inferred’ motive as element required of proof burden regarding killing, nature dence is That conclusion premeditation. example, the number of shots and wrong. shot within close whether the defendant that he intended Hall’s concession Given Moua, 40-41 (quot- 678 range. N.W.2d the fact that at the kill Winfield and 361). Moore, 481 N.W.2d men killing time Winfield’s determining whether errone- When fought Hall had earlier were whom harmless, we must ous instruction was vicinity, the issue for entirety. in its the instruction consider Hall premeditated was whether decide (Minn. Ihle, 910, 916 v. 640 N.W.2d State killing. Premeditation “means 2002) wheth- (explaining that to determine for, consider, or deter- plan prepare fairly adequately er instructiоns commit, to prior act referred mine case, they must be explain the law the commission.” 609.18 to its Minn.Stat. presume (2004). entirety). in their We viewed is as ‘a “Premeditation defined followed instructions generally proved mind circumstan- state of Budreau, given. State v. by drawing tially inferences from defen- (Minn.2002) (recognizing the court’s light of the dant’s words actions ” jurors presumption that follow court’s v. totality of the State circumstances.’ instructions). case, (Minn.2004) the trial court Moua, 678 N.W.2d following Brocks, 37, gave the instruction on v. 587 N.W.2d (quoting State (Minn.1998)). and intent. can tation Premeditation be in- motive, and planning activity, ferred of murder in the first de- The elements killing. at 40. nature of Id. We are, first, Dennis La- gree the death of said, prove premedita- “In order to Winfield, proven. must be mont Jr. always tion, prove ‘the state must Second, the Defendant caused death the intent to after the defendant formed Winfield, Third, Lamont Jr. of Dennis kill, during passed some time appreciable with premeditation the Defendant acted consideration, planning, prepa- to kill Dennis La- and with the intent * * * required ration or determination person. or another mont Jr. act prior to of the took the commission that the Defen- Premeditation means ” Netland, place.’ v. 535 N.W.2d State considered, prepared planned, dant (Minn.1995) (quoting act determined commit the (Minn.1992)). Moore, 355, 361 it. Premedi- the Defendant committed Thus, statutory it is clear from the defini- mind, tation, is being process law “premeditation” our case tion and, hence, suscep- wholly subjective predicates— has two by It direct evidence. proof tible intent or and an act. Absent either inferred from all circumstances *9 act, found. premeditation an cannot be It surrounding the event. is neces- any categories sary that exist recognized three of haveWe of A specific length premeditated time. pre- to an inference evidence relevant
481 in have applied decision to kill reached a the transferred intent doc However, un- in period a[n] short of time. trine with that description. accordance impulse, though Ford, considered or even 214, 219, rash See State v. 539 N.W.2d kill, pre- (Minn.1995) it includes an intent to is not (applying transferred in meditated. when, tent doctrine in the course of shoot kill, officer, police
In order to intent to defendant have wounded Merrill, bystander); the Defendant must have acted with the State v. 450 N.W.2d death, (Minn.1990) purpose causing or the Defen- (holding kill intent to dant must have believed the act fetus); mother is transferable her Suth erlin, have result. at 239-40 (holding de If fendant guilty first-degree premeditated the Defendant acted with tation and with intent to cause the murder through transferred intent when another, pre- death of the element of premeditated defendant intended satisfied, kill meditation and is murder of accidentally one man but shot though the Defendant did not in- bystander). Thus, and killed a in order for kill tend to Dennis Lamont Jr. the transferred intent doctrine to in apply case, Hall, Fourth, shooting in place killing act took the Defendant’s Win- field, Hennepin premeditated on or 2004 in have and intend about October ed tо kill County. someone other than Winfield but accidentally mistakenly or killed Winfield Viewing entirety the instructions their instead. But happened is what must, that assuming, as we here. explained, As the court it was error instructions, I conclude that followed give the instruction because “there was in giving the error the transferred intent no evidence in the record that Winfield beyond a instruction was harmless reason- victim; indeed, was an unintended there able doubt. no showing that when Hall The doctrine of intent is rec- transferred anyone shot Winfield he intended to kill Sutherlin, ognized Minnesota. State v. reason, except For the Winfield.” same (Minn.1986). Trans- giving the error the instruction was apply first-degree pre- ferred intent can harmless. meditated murder. id. at See 239-40. Premeditation will transfer with intent if The court concludes error was perpetrator premeditated the murder not harmless there is evidence in accidentally an intended victim but or the record from mistakenly killed an unintended victim. inferred that the time between Hall re- id. at 240. See Transferred intent with gun trieved the arrived at respect murder has been considered, planned station prepared he described as follows: determined, is, premeditat- he A justification [I]f without aims at B ed, killing of the unidentified men.
with a premeditated and deliberate in- The court jury may concludes (so tent to kill B if he should B premeditation relating then have used the guilty degree he would be first mur- unidentified men convict Hall of der) but, B, accidentally missing hits murder of with- * * * C, and kills A is of the first making out as to determination whether degree murder of C. The killing. LaFave, Wayne R. court’s our ignores Substantive Criminal conclusion definition of (2d ed.2003). 14.7(a), “premeditation,” law on Law at 482 We our transferred *10 anyone than ing, our Hall intended to kill other intent, actually given, the instructions by acci- juries or that he killed Winfield follow those Winfield presumption that Indeed, Hall re- structions, or after circumstances dent mistake. and the factual station, to the evidence Citgo turned the killing. of Winfield’s act, that he either with shows did Here, court’s instruction the trial any carry to out premeditation, without relating intent to Win- premeditation respect the un- killing intentional with to theAt accurately field stated the law. identified men. time, erroneously given under the same Rather, the instruction, record shows that Winfield intent transferred transferred taking to the garbage and the and M.G. were play come into intent would have Citgo dumpster to Hall arrived at the and intent when premeditation elements of street, station, аcross the crossed the walked kill would have been satisfied “if Winfield, up apron, and the station’s walked to premeditation acted with Defendant multiple displayed gun, the of anoth- shot Winfield the to cause death with added). point-blank range, from then is no evi- times (emphasis er” There jury nothing could have fled. there was dence from which respect jury jury could used to reach found both intent and act with that, Hall shot Clearly, men. after the conclusion at time to the unidentified station, Winfield, act Hall to shoot Citgo no and killed intended Hall returned to men, any any respect kind to unidentified and kill of the unidentified with Thеrefore, place. jury jury took could not have concluded that men kill the acted with intent unidentified not have found that And, to Because the killing of the unidentified men. men when killed Winfield. obvious, that Hall being jury there no could not have concluded state men, kill the to the acted with intent unidentified respect tation with could be could not have used the premeditation there was no satisfy theory the ele- of transferred intent as the basis transferred and used finding premeditation respect that Hall Win- ment was, however, ample evi- There field’s murder. that Hall support finding dence to In addition to evidence Hall’s respect “acted” with intent with to Win- Winfield, strong to kill there is and from could be inferred field that, from which could infer after killing. that Hall Winfield, Hall formed the intent to kill appreciable passed some amount time demonstrating The evidence considered, during planned one else is which Hall intended kill Winfield and no striking. prepared at trial that at or determined to Win- Hall conceded to, i.e., killing Upon to kill him. acting time of the act referred field before station, Winfield, crossed Citgo he intended to kill Winfield return Moreover, station, street to the the sta- and not unidentified men. crossed apron, up pulled even tion’s walked supports the record conclusion weapon, noth- at multiple There is out his fired shots without Hall’s concession. range, then fled. showing uniden- Winfield a close the record vicinity as to anywhere men in the That acted with tified were shot, can from the time nor is there also be inferred Winfield it could events that occurred before he returned anything in the record from which station, including of the shoot- the confronta- inferred time *11 field, during tion Hall and Winfield and the fact between that Hall’s intoxication Winfield, saying which threatened supported by defense was not the record. isn’t bulletproof glаss [going] to “[t]his Because I conclude that trial court’s you,” locking save Hall in the Winfield error in giving the transferred intent in- until Hall returned the station items beyond struction was harmless a reason- buy. originally intended Given doubt, able I would affirm Hall’s convic- evidence, could tions. premeditated concluded that Hall Win- could field’s murder and not resort ANDERSON, A., RUSSELL Chief Jus- transferring premeditation relating to tice (dissenting). someone other than Winfield as the basis join I for the dissent Justice satisfying Page. element. Therefore, the trial court’s error in giving ANDERSON,
the transferred instruction was H. (dissenting). PAUL harmless.1 join I Page. the dissent of Justice proceedings suppоrt
The trial that con- trial,
clusion. focus of the The central trial,
all of the evidence produced except testimony
for that A.M.’s brief Hall was
angry at the unidentified men when he
returned to the retrieved gun, at establishing was directed premeditated and intended Winfield’s
murder. true that during While it is clos- In re PETITION FOR DISCIPLINARY ing argument prosecutor misstated the ACTION Kenneth B. AGAINST HU law as well as the transferred intent in- BER, Attorney, Registra a Minnesota struction court given by the when he ar- tion No. 164355. gued that find that Hall No. A06-1758. premeditated by finding Winfield’s murder premeditated that Hall the murder of the Supreme Court of Minnesota. argument consisted of 16 Oct. 2006. lines in the middle the state’s 21- page closing argument. The argu- state’s ORDER prosecutor ment began quoting with the Office of Lawyers The Director of the Hall’s threat the bullet- peti- Professional has filed а Responsibility proof glass protect him. The tion disciplinary alleging for action argument rest of the consisted of the facts respondent Huber committed surrounding shooting of Kenneth B. professional they warranting public related misconduct to the elements second- murder, degree discipline, namely, during intentional settlement first-degree respect negotiations compensation in a workers’ Win- erroneously given 1. I which also note it could be inferred Hall, murder, harmed instruction to have highly unlikely tated it is reject ignore would have had to all of the ignored jury rejected each and evidence from could be inferred that every finding piece of that evidence Winfield’s murder. Given Winfield’s murder. in the record extrinsic evidence