*1 legislature MHRA that which out of the provide. today generat- the court’s decision claims3
ing of sexual harassment a flood who have never faced people
from class of workplace, gender equality
barriers being protection less result
with the ultimate who have faced women and men those legislature clear-
such and whom barriers protect.
ly intended
Therefore, I dissent. Minnesota, Respondent,
STATE JOHNSON, Appellant. Antione
Lavon
No. C4-96-1716.
Supreme of Minnesota. Court
Aug. 1997. simply "rude paraphrase Tomljanovich her courts cannot be arbiter all Justice from To Airlines, opinion concurring in Bilal v. Northwest conduct. crude” (Minn. 1995), Inc., *2 at the time of the was subse-
old quently photographic identified from a line- up as the shooter. Johnson was indicted murder, murder, first-degree second-degree *3 murder, first-degree attempted and second- attempted degree murder. trial, attempted prove
At the defense youth, African-American who that another scene, present at was also the crime was theory, Pursuant to this the de- shooter. reverse evidence con- fense offered shooting involv- cerning separate incident youth, ing the other court excluded guilty this evidence. The found Johnson first-degree attempted first- murder and murder, the court sentenced degree imprisonment first-degree life for sen- murder and a consecutive 180-month first-degree attempted for murder. On tence re- appeal, grounds Johnson raises two First, new versal. Johnson claims warranted district court trial is because the excluding in erred concerning involving incident Second, youth. he claims that the the other him the witness identifications of shooter to support insufficient the convictions. were We affirm. 21, 1995, approximately at
On October youths in p.m., Asian-American 10:30 seven Stuart, Defender, Public John M. circling surrounding area car were Defender, Norris, Lyonel Asst. Public Services, Hmong Home Inc. at the Funeral Minneapolis, appellant. corner of Dale Street and Lafond Avenue III, Gen., Atty. Humphrey H. St. Hubert Paul, parking in search of a St. Minnesota Gaertner, Ramsey County Paul, Atty., Susan space. Bing was the driver of the car. He Hill, Ramsey County Atty, Asst. Darrell C. accompanied girlfriend, Mary, his his was Paul, respondent. St. (Tou), cousin, Xiong (Fong), Chang Fong Tou (Peter), (Billi), Xiong Yang Billi Villi Peter Vang. Simultaneously, group and John youths African-American and Caucasian (645 youths youths) Lafond was situated OPINION property around the at 645 Lafond Ave- youths April nue. These included: Brown- ANDERSON, Justice. Lafond, McCoy (April), who resided at Johnson, Appellant, Antione Lavon (Aleisha), who also Aleisha Feiner resided present Avenue in the area 645 Lafond (Le- Lafond, 15-year-old Mac Lesure Paul, evening of Octo- St. Minnesota sure), (James), Hobbs several oth- James gunshots fired into a ber 1995when present this time in ers. Johnson was not paralyzing youths, car of Asian-American evening. Xiong (Bing) killing girlfriend, Bing Johnson, youths 17-year-old The Asian-American and the Mary Yang (Mary). years youths differing accounts of Lafond offered an African-American male who was According youths evening. what occurred that Asian-American jumped out and April testimony, argu- yelling. and Aleisha’s trial an started Lesure then ran toward the place youths, ment took between the Asian-Ameri- Asian-American and the Asian- youths youths, ap- youths can and the 645 Lafond American off took across the street. parently car, over whether the Asian-American Lesure then stood and when the youths park parking spot rolling off, car could their car started he followed behind and altercation, During near 645 Lafond. fired at it about four times. Aleisha testified “bitch,” boy Aleisha car, Asian-American called that when Lesure was at the boy slapped sitting an Asian-American James Johnson was on the curb near Aleisha face, youths the Asian-American threw and did not move toward the car. rocks, everybody “grabbin’ sticks and April changed and Aleisha each her ver- *4 stuff,” and Lesure was hit in the head with a sion of events several times to trial. rock. April’s The altercation ended when April initially police told the that had she grandfather came out the house and told anything. however, seen After shooting, everyone who did not live there leave. April pólice night told that on the left, After youths the Asian-American Le- shooting, she gun saw that Johnson a had telephone sure used the at 645 Lafond and up when he lifted his April shirt. also identi- later, bicycle. off A then rode on his while photo line-up fied a Johnson from as the one youths knocking the 645 Lafond saw Johnson who shooting. had done the Subsequently, door, neighbor’s a joined Johnson and April though, public told the in- defender’s group. vestigator gun that Lesure had the and did
April at trial shooting. April testified that when the 645 the police then told the that youths Johnson, Lafond responsible encountered he Lesure was but Lesure, up asked upon questioning, then lifted his shirt and further she that stated it gun a pants. revealed the waistband of his was not Lesure and that was Johnson. At April stated, trial, got April testified that Johnson “I admitted that her version of somethin’ for 'em.” Subsequently, changed. Lesure events had that She testified a Lesure, Johnson, up bicycle rode on his and male identifying caller himself as Johnson and Aleisha telephoned each had some sticks. The car approximately had her three containing youths say the Asian-American re- times told and her that Lesure had the turned, gun. and Aleisha and the others said to She she falsely testified that had tried youths, up.” implicate keep Asian-American “what’s Lesure order to Johnson Then, youths’ getting Asian-American car from into trouble. street, stopped in the middle of the and a initially Aleisha told the she did not couple youths jumped of Asian-American out identity know the of the shooter. Subse- Lesure, of the car and to run started towards however, quently, Aleisha identified Johnson Johnson, Lesure, Johnson, and Aleisha. photo line-up, as the from a shooter told the running up
Aleisha “started towards car public investigator defender’s that Johnson and shootin’.” As gun- soon as she heard shooter, was the and testified before the shots, April April ran into the house. testi- jury grand that Johnson was the shooter. fied gun that she did not see the public Aleisha later told defender’s inves- anyone. see Johnson gun hand the tigator that the shooter was neither Johnson trial, Lesure, At Aleisha testified that a few min- nor light-skinned some African- joined Then, utes after Johnson po- the 645 Lafond American male. Aleisha told the group, riding bicycle up Lesure came on his lice Lesure was the shooter. Aleisha’s problems prior grand testimony that he jury said had “had some was read into the with these Asians.” testimony, Lesure was mad be- record at trial. In that Aleisha cause he had been hit with stated head a that after the initial altercation with rock. Aleisha youths, testified that Lesure showed the Asian-American Lesure called her and the others a “bring piece Johnson and him told minute, pants. quick Within about ear to come because he had had some youths up grand Asian-American drove and two trouble with some Asians.” In her line-up, looking at this “without hesitation” testimony, described Johnson as Aleisha said, jacket. pointed to Johnson “That’s the pants and red Tou wearing tan dark one,” meaning that Johnson was the shooter. youths offered dif- The Asian-American also made an in-eourt identification of Tou evening. occurred that ferent account what Johnson as the shooter. The record shows trial, having testimony Bing denied In his Tou and were at Totem Town altercation with 645 Lafond the initial nearly three months. together for youths. that as the Asian- Tou testified Billi the Asian-American driving down La- testified youths’ American car Avenue, youths driving fond, people were down Lafond were African-American there youths on the side of arguing on the side of noticed the Lafond people and Caucasian street, then and came back and sticks. Tou drove around carrying bats the street fight. get look at what the 645 Lafond going to be closer thought there was youths stopped and all youths parked doing. car ear their Asian-American youths jumped out of got African-American of the Asian-American out of the ear. Some except Fong, Mary, They something the car and Peter. approached males them and said youths up to the curb to see what the 645 indicating Asian-American walked youths wanted and then Billi heard park there. Tou then heard Lafond should not yell gun.” got a Billi then saw say got gun,” “he has and saw an someone “he’s *5 someone taking gun gun. a run out with a Billi testified male out to- someone African-American happened too him to quickly Tou then ran that events right ward his chest area. ear, companions person gun the with the was wear- his had see what toward the but in, recognized holding they got ing, person he ran but he the the car doors as so closed the gun Billi the car lengths ear down the as Johnson. ran back to approximately three stopped got laughing the in. He then someone “sort of in middle and and heard street and street,” Billi to of the and ducked down. looked back towards the end of the side away. going “thought was he it 50 or 60 feet Tou what on because somewhere around joke gun,” all a the but Johnson back and saw the African-Amer- was about then turned point firing gun. the started the Billi testified that he gun gun ican male with toward car, around, laugh, recognized as someone knew at and shoot five or he turn recognized six Tou the shooter as Totem Town. times. staying when he was someone he seen night shooting, Billi told the On (Totem Town), juvenile a Boys Town Totem police that the shooter was an African-Amer- July
facility, April from to 1995. He testified male, years aged age, 14 to 15 5’5”in ican wearing a red or ma- shooter was build, skinny wearing a height, with a red jacket. roon waist-length jacket stripes with white and pants. Tou colored At the time of the of- day The after the identified dark fense, photo 17-year-old a line-up. from a Johnson was African- Johnson as shooter complexion photo male a Tou was three different line- American with medium shown line-up weighs pounds height. is 5’9” in ups. photo first did not contain who and police any night Tou not make Billi did not tell the on the picture, Johnson’s and did line-up recognized photo con- that he the shooter. identification. The second However, pho- a photos, including or Billi identified Johnson from tained six individual two Town, line-up day persons shooting. at Totem to after the Of the three who had been photo line-ups police photos, well filler but not John- three showed as other Tou, two Billi shown the first and the picture. pointed son’s Tou to or three of to was line-ups. Billi make an identifi- pictures people and knew the third did not said he line-up. Town, photo from the Billi saw from none of them was the cation first Totem but line-up, line-up photo third after a maximum photo shooter. The was com- third seconds, puter generated photos, pointed pic- to Johnson’s contained six five he said, one.” including picture and five filler ture and “That’s the Tou and Johnson’s photo separately pictures. line-ups Billi who showed Tou viewed officer line-up opportunity not have an confer before photo the third testified that after pho- either from third going identified Johnson looked like he was to turn and walk away, Billi line-up. suddenly also made in-court identi- but he turned around and pulled gun fication of Johnson as the shooter. out and started at the trying car. As the car get away, was stayed he Fong testified that in the ear teenager car in quick jog. followed the Mary. with He looked out the back window teenager wearing pants was dark and a person jacket holding and saw a a red jacket red jacket oversized like a “Starter” big pointing with a handle and it at the design stripes. with a on it like Skottegaard person pulled gun up car. The really face, could teenager’s see the Fong shooting. started testified that was lights, under the the teenager street “looked too dark for him to see the shooter’s face. Asian-type person” short, more of an with car, Bing, the driver of the testified that he dark hair. fights arguments. was not in any involved Skottegaard, Victoria also a resident group He testified that the of Asian-Ameri- Lafond, testified that she looked out of the youths cruising can was around window and saw a bunch of kids and the go Peter wanted to the funeral home occupants having a car some sort con- get money Bing some from father. testi- frontation. The car moving started and one parked fied he car got go out to person still yelling people home, funeral and there was whole ear. She looking the car when she person bunch of commotion. He saw a pull gunshot, heard the first and she watched as car, got out gun, back into the looked gunshots five additional were fired. The car, if everyone around to see inwas wearing jacket shooter was reda and white back, person cocking looked and saw some pants. yellow and dark toDue color of Then, drive, gun. put the car in started light, street Skottegaard Victoria could area, parking drive out of the and heard was, not tell what race the shooter but she *6 gunshots five or six somebody laughing. and short, believed she saw a short-haired male. He then felt numbness and told his friends that he shot. Bing was had been shot behind Johnson was arrested and indicted right his is permanently para- murder, shoulder and first-degree murder, second-degree lyzed Mary, from the murder, chest down. first-degree attempted seated and second- Bing, next to was shot three degree attempted times and died pleaded murder. He not as a of police result her wounds. guilty charges. The recov- to all At the omnibus hear- gun ered the ing, used in the a .22 the district court ordered that certain pistol. caliber semi-automatic during statements made Johnson in- his terrogation by police the would not be admis- Lafond, Two residents which is two sible as evidence at substantive trial. The Lafond, houses ofWest also testified at court, however, denied the defense’s motion trial as to the events occurred on the photo line-up to the exclude identifications. evening Timothy of October Skot- theory The defense’s at trial was that Lesure tegaard he testified that looked out was the shooter. The defense offered re- bedroom four window and saw or five Asian- Spreigl verse concerning evidence a June persons hop American out of a they car like shooting Lesure, involving incident but were confronting youths at 645 Lafond. the court excluded this evidence. The hollering After a lot of arguing, guilty found Johnson of the first-degree mur- persons got Asian-Ameriean into back their der of Mary Yang the attempted first- car proceeded pull to in front of his degree Bing Xiong. murder of The court people house. The car all look- imprisonment sentenced Johnson to life ing somebody them talking behind like was first-degree murder consecutive 180- Then, to teenager them. another came from month attempted first-degree sentence for Skottegaard corner his house. could murder. teenager clearly stopped because he right at in light the street front of his appeal, house. this first claims that a The teenager trying say was something to new trial is warranted because the district persons. teenager Asian-American court in excluding erred evi- approximately p.m. 9:40 concerning shooting a 1994 incident of arrest was
dence Second, police long .22 found a loaded caliber rifle he claims that the involving Lesure. n witnessidentifications handgun approximately 25 as automatic feet of him the shooter apprehended. from where Lesure was Le- support convictions. were insufficient that he had found the a few sure stated did not that the district court We conclude earlier, weeks but said that shoot excluding in the reverse discretion abuse its police gun. The interviewed the remain- and that the evidence was Spreigl evidence ing juveniles, appear four none of whom convictions; support Johnson’s sufficient appellant have been Johnson. The other therefore, affirm. we youths just they up stated that with met youths Lesure. These were released I. Lesure, however, in charged scene. Johnson’s reverse We first address dangerous discharge incident the crime of argues that district court claim. Johnson firearm, of a state dismissed this excluding in from trial reverse erred charge. being juvenile admit to Lesure did concerning shooting a 1994 incident possession pistol. Lesure, 15-year-old African- involving trial, proof At defense made offer present at male also was American who been involved in of evidence that Lesure had shooting. night Lafond Accord- on incident and the district ing police reports, evening on the three hearing presence court held a outside flagged a woman down June jury.1 inap- court ruled it was squad that she had ear and told propriate to admit evidence the 1994 Lafayette driving been the area of Avenue incident, stating: Paul, University Avenue in Minneso- St. agree I with the State that the incidents gunshots or six were fired her ta when five clearly permit so here are not similar as to Lafayette and car. The intersection of Uni- Spriegl the use of the 1994 [sic] incident versity approximately 20 blocks from La- Certainly if this case. fond The victim described sus- Avenue. offering against state this incident Mr. males pects as five six African-American Johnson, permit I would not its admission bicycles. A described the second victim appropriate it is believe that male, 14 shooter as an African-American this use the case allow defense to old, height, wearing striped years 5’5” in *7 Spriegl 1994 as reverse [sic]. incident reports in the shirt. The victims named Samouen, Mao, Yang and a three- were Sarn argues court erred when it year-old child. shooting of the excluded the evidence 1994 involving incident Lesure and that this error police flagged A short time after the were deprived him of a fair trial. down, police driving Airy on Mount Evidentiary generally spotted rulings African-American rest Road and five juveniles bicycles. police or- within district court’s and will male The discretion they juveniles stop, to which not be reversed absent a clear abuse of that dered the did. Glaze, 655, police Yang group to v. The took Mao of discretion. State 452 N.W.2d (Minn.1990). 404(b) police stopped, and she Under rule of the juveniles that the 660 Evidence, juveniles Rules she had seen Minnesota evidence of identified them as crime, juveniles, wrong, or later identified another act is not admissi earlier. One Lesure, police prove person to at appeared as to be “ex- ble trial to character of by conformity tremely approached show action in therewith. nervous.” When to 404(b). R. possibly and Minn. Evid. Evidence of another police to be interviewed crime, admissible, searched, may running, wrong, or act be how Lesure started was ever, purposes, proof by police, apprehended. He other such as chased and motive, intent, plan, opportunity, preparation, wearing striped a blue shirt. time police stipulated that if the the same as that documented re- 1. state the defense police testify ports. officers were called to about the incident, shooting testimony be 1994 their would
433 identity, by person or been knowledge, or absence mistake committed some other when Id. shall not be person closely accident. Such evidence the acts of such other are so prosecution in a criminal unless the admitted point connected in of time and method crime, wrong, partic- act other or and the operation upon cast doubt the identifi- ipation by person proven in it a relevant are person cation defendant as the who com- convincing evidence. Id. clear and charged against mitted the crime him.” Id. 458, Deans, 39 N.W.2d 404(b), Pursuant to rule the state this court stated: may seek to introduce evidence of defen * * * * ** prove dant’s other crimes or misconduct to If party the conduct of a third the defendant committed the crime is an if issue and ‘other Moorman, question. See State v. 505 crimes, wrongs, or party acts’ the third 593, (Minn.1993); generally N.W.2d 600 prove is not party’s offered the third 488, v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 139 N.W.2d as a character basis for an inference toas (1965). 167 Evidence of defendant’s other prove conduct but instead is offered to (referred crimes, wrongs, or acts to as party any the conduct of the third without ” evidence) “Spreigl upon is admissible show character, need infer his then the evi- (1) ing: convincing clear and evidence that dence admissible. participated Spreigl in the in defendant (Minn.1984). 674, 356 N.W.2d 676 The foun- (2) cident; Spreigl that the evidence is rele requirements dational ev- Spreigl for reverse (3) case; vant and material the state’s Spreigl idence are the same as for probative that the value of evi generally Thompson, See 11 P. Minnesota outweighs potential dence its for unfair prej Practice, (2d ed.1992), § 404.06 at n.3. Landin, udice. State v. 472 N.W.2d (Minn.1991) (citation omitted); see also State requirement first for admission Bolte, (Minn.1995) 196-97 of Johnson’s reverse evidence is clear (detailing procedural requirements and safe convincing partici evidence that Lesure evidence). guards governing other-crime pated in the 1994 incident. “Clear When it is unclear whether convincing” requires pre more than admissible, defendant given should be evidence, ponderance of the but less than benefit doubt evidence proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Weber Bolte, should be excluded. Anderson, (citing Spreigl, 272 Minn. at testimony The unrebutted of three 172). N.W.2d at clearly ficers convincingly shows that participated Lesure inci 404(b), pursuant Also to rule de police, dent. ran Lesure from the admitted may seek introduce evidence of fendant .22 owning handgun, caliber and when person other crimes misconduct of third apprehended wearing a shirt which prove person, that the third rather than description defendant, matched a victim’s of the shooter. charged. committed the crime *8 motion, hearing At the on the defense’s the proof The defendant’s in offer of this situa ” state Spreigl tion conceded the defense had estab is referred to as “reverse evi Willis, lished generally convincing dence. v. clear evidence that See State 364 possessed pistol Lesure on (Minn.App.1985). N.W.2d the date of leading 498 The the regarding Spreigl par case incident. The evidence of Lesure’s reverse evidence is Bock, 449, ticipation supported State v. 39 in 229 Minn. the incident further N.W.2d 887 (1949). Bock, In charged this court the fact that Lesure was stated that the * * * right dangerous discharge defendant “should have the crime of of a firearm show that crimes of a similar nature have admitted lesser offense.2 Spreigl proven by 2. This court convincing has declined bar evidence incidents were clear and prosecuted properly other crimes which either were evidence and were in admitted when dismissed, incident, prosecuted charge exchange or were not at all. first was dismissed in 846, Kasper, (Minn. guilty charge arising State v. 409 N.W.2d plea 847 from second 1987); see, Moorman, incident; e.g., charged; State v. 505 N.W.2d third incident was not (Minn.1993) incident, doubt); (holding Spreigl identity 602 in four fourth was not in 434 apparently a second, involving the incident Lesure was and in this case
The
addition, the incidents oc
difficult,
random act.
In
requirement for admission
more
apart.
Cogshell,
we
16 months
curred
Spreigl evidence is
Johnson’s reverse
committed 15 months
stated that
offense
case.
relevant to Johnson’s
evidence be
the
closely
to the
“clearly
earlier was
related
this
are instructive on
Spreigl cases
Our
charged
temporal
crime
in
terms.”
538
satisfy
“relevant and material”
point. To
Bock,
at
124.
229 Minn.
N.W.2d at
Spreigl
is offered
requirement when
Cf.
(reversal
when,
at
warranted
N.W.2d
identity
perpetrator,
to establish
checks,
prosecution
forged
in
defendant’s
must be similar
Spreigl incident
Spreigl
on same
time, location,
reverse
incidents occurred
in
either
charged offense
in
day
charged; forged
crime
checks used
Landin,
as
at
472 N.W.2d
operandi.3
modus
Spreigl
incidents
identical
readily uphold the ad
This
will
court
date,
charged
payee,
payer;
crime
as to
“signature” crimes to
of so-called
mission
Spreigl
operation
in reverse
and method
prove
identity
perpetrator;
howev
allegedly
incidents was identical with
er,
“signature”
Spreigl crime need not be
charged).
used in crime
sufficiently or sub
provided that it is
crime
charged.
stantially
the crime
similar
points
in
of our
out that
some
Johnson
120, 123-24
Cogshell,
v.
538 N.W.2d
upheld
we
the admis
recent decisions
have
(Minn.1995).
similarity between
Absolute
similarity
Spreigl
sion of
evidence when the
charged offense
Spreigl incident and the
and the crime
Spreigl
between
incident
Landin,
required.
which reasonable basis for II. appar at 645 Lafond was sion. retaliatory with a next address Johnson’s insuf ently a act connection We ficiency claim. con- Conversely, the altercation. Rainer, (Minn. perpetrator uncer- "showfed] defendant some 496-97 1987) tainty"). (holding convincing evi that clear and *9 alleged acts in dence defendant committed apparently uncharged Spreigl exist incidents six permit 3. court held that district court is This has testimony, eyewitness there ed when there was relevancy, determining in ted discretion some testimony, identity rebutting was no and the and that the other crime be similar some doubt); time, location, participants operan- State v. Cole way the was not or modus —either although " man, 777, (Minn.1985) (af 373 N.W.2d 781-82 an this ‘is not absolute necessi di—" 697, firming ty.' Kumpula, admission of evidence of defendant's v. 355 N.W.2d 702 (Minn.1984) uncharged participation apparently (quoting Filippi, 335 N.W.2d other two 739, (Minn. 1983)). though 743 identifications of robberies even witness
435
insuffi-
point
gun
the evidence at trial was
he saw the male
the
tends that
toward the car
jury’s
times,
the
the gun
cient to sustain the
verdict because
shoot
five or six
that he
testimony
upon
recognized
the
the
verdict was based
shooter as someone he had
eyewitnesses,
testimony
before,
seen
Totem
which
was unreliable
Town several months
reviewing
wearing
the
In
under
circumstances.
a
the shooter was
a
ma-
red or
evidence,
insufficiency
jacket,
roon
claim of
this
and that the shooter
John-
was
upon
ascertaining
testimony
court
is
son.
review limited
Tou’s
is consistent with his
whether, given
police
night
the facts in the record and
statement
to the
on the
of the
legitimate
police
inferences that can be drawn
when
told
he
he could
facts,
reasonably
a jury
identify
from those
could
as
shooter
someone who had
guilty
that the
was
been at Totem
conclude
defendant
Town with him. Tou’s in-
Merrill,
charged.
State v.
274 court
offense
identification
also consistent with his
99,
(Minn.1978).
111
This court can-
N.W.2d
identification
Johnson as the shooter from
facts,
retry
photo line-up
day.
not
but must take
view of
next
evidence most favorable
the state and
jury
could also have believed Billi’s
jury
must
assume
believed the
testimony
recognized
that he
Johnson as
any
state’s
contra-
witnesses
disbelieved
he
someone
knew from Totem Town and that
dictory
jury, giving
Id. If
due
was
police
Johnson
the shooter.
When
regard
presumption
of innocence and
questioned
shortly
Billi
after the
he
proving
to the state’s burden of
the defen-
not disclose to the
that he had
doubt,
beyond a
guilt
dant’s
reasonable
could
shooter;
recognized
day,
but the next
reasonably
guilty,
have found the defendant
as
identified Johnson
the shooter from a
jury’s
this
uphold
court will
Id.
verdict.
photo line-up. Billi’s in-court identification
Johnson is
consistent with
identi-
eyewitnesses,
Billi,
Two
Tou and
photo line-up.
fication of Johnson in the
at trial that
testified
Johnson was the shooter
evening
21,
645 Lafond on
October
points
Bil-
Johnson
out that Tou and
Both
Tou and Billi also identified
only
li
opportunity
limited
observe
photo line-up
Johnson as the shooter from a
“eye
shooter. This court has noted that
day
shown
them on the
after
murder.
upon fleeting
witness identification made
support
This court has held that in order to
limited observation
the time of a crime is
conviction,
posi
an identification need not be
reliable and
absence of corrobora
certain;
rather,
tive and
the identification
tion
should
be the basis
conviction.”
can
be sufficient if witness
that in
testifies
406,
Spann,
State v.
287 N.W.2d
407-408
belief,, opinion,
judgment,
the witness’
(Minn.1979).
and Billi’s identification
Tou’s
person
the defendant is the
whom
wit
as
Johnson
the shooter is corroborated
ness
saw commit
crime. State Dan
supports
reliability.
other
which
its
iels,
persuasive corroborating
One
fact
credibility of individual witnesses and the
admits he
at the scene of the
weight
given
testimony
to be
to each witness’
addition,
shooting.
it is uncontested that
jury
are issues for the
determine.
Johnson was a resident of Totem Town and
(Minn.1990)
Bliss,
(cit
recognized
that Tou and Billi
him
could have
Rainer,
495).
ing
N.W.2d at
It is well-
having
from
been there at the same time.4
established rule that a
rest
conviction can
Tou’s
Billi’s
are
cor
identifications
also
upon
testimony
single
of a
wit
credible
that,
April
though
roborated
the fact
even
ness. Id.
changed
Aleisha
their version of events
times,
days
have believed Tou’s testi-
several
could
three
after the
mony
photo
that he saw African-American male
each of them was
line
shown the same
area,
take
right
up
out
from his
chest
to Tou and Billi
each
that was shown
Zernechel,
(Minn.1980) (holding
4. See State v.
N.W.2d
that iden
(Minn.1981) (affirming conviction
victim
victim
when
tification
instantly recognized
defendant
sufficient when
immediately recognized
attacker
former
as
her
defendant
someone she
*10
Palm,
town).
apartment building);
tenant of
State v.
had
seen numerous times in small
jury
The
on
could have relied
the shooter.
addi- Lesure.
identified Johnson
April’s testimony at trial that Johnson had
that she had seen
tion, April
at trial
testified
shooting.5
gun shortly
The
immediately before the
before
gun
with the
Johnson
jury
hand
Aleisha’s testimo-
not see him
could have disbelieved
that she did
shooting and
was the shooter.
ny
trial
that Lesure
anyone
else.
gun
in this
was sub-
Each
the witnesses
case
was wear-
testimony that
shooter
Tou’s
cross-examination, during which the
ject to
jacket was corroborated
or maroon
ing a red
discrepancies in his or
inconsistencies and
Timothy
Fong,
Skotte-
by other evidence.
testimony
presented
jury.
to the
her
Skottegaard all testified
gaard, and Victoria
jury
properly instructed
how to
jacket.
wearing a red
the shooter was
that
credibility.
evaluate the witnesses’
testified that on
officers
One of
Billi
him that the
told
night of the
reasonably
in this case could
evidence
jacket.
wearing a red
More-
shooter
beyond
jury
a reason-
lead the
to conclude
grand jury
over,
Aleisha testified before
21, 1995, Johnson
able
that on October
doubt
wearing
jacket
red
that Johnson was
paralyzed Bing Xiong
fired
the shots
shooting and was the shooter.
night of the
Yang.
that the
Mary
and killed
We conclude
testimony
took
Finally,
that Johnson
Tou’s
to sustain the convic-
evidence was sufficient
is corroborated
gun
his chest area
out a
from
tions.
testimony
by
that Johnson had a
April’s
Affirmed.
There
shortly
occurred.
before
TOMLJANOVICH,
(concurring spe-
Justice
corroborating
to sustain
ample
is
evidence
cially).
and Billi’s identi-
jury’s conclusion that Tou’s
reli-
by
as the shooter were
fications
Johnson
I
concur with
result reached
only fleeting
Billi
separately
express my
able even if Tou and
majority, but
write
opportunity
or
to observe
shooter.
determining
limited
concern about the standards
”1
admissibility
Spreigl
evi-
of “reverse
support
argu
of his
In further
dence.
evidence was insufficient
ment
convictions,
points
Although agree
that the foundational re
support
admissibility
testimony
quirements
of the various
for
reverse
discrepancies in the
However,
jury,
Spreigl
are
to those foun
as the sole
evidence
identical
“[a]
witnesses.
credibility,
accept
requirements
admissibility
part
free to
dational
judge of
is
evidence, I
testimony.”
Spreigl
disagree
with the conclu
reject part
a witness’
by
majority
sion reached
both the
and the
257 N.W.2d
Poganski,
analyses
founda
or
one
dissent that the
within each
“Inconsistencies
conflicts between
necessarily
admissibility of re
requirement
tional
and another do not
state witness
testimony
Spreigl
for re
verse
evidence are
same as the
false
or
basis
constitute
Daniels,
analyses
require
within each foundational
361 N.W.2d
826.
versal.”
admissibility
Spreigl
April
prior ment for
jury could have believed that
lied
is
that Lesure was the Whereas
evidence
offered
show
to trial when she said
by
crimes committed
because she felt threatened
scared
shooter
defen
by
implicate
likely
it more
that the defendant
attempts to have her
dant make
Johnson’s
Triplett,
v. Spreigl,
44-45
272 Minn.
437
the crime for which the defendant
crime”
is
committed
evidence
relevant and material to
charged,
Spreigl,
v.
Minn.
is
see State
272
party’s
case.
488, 491, 139
167, 169 (1965),
offering
When the state is
“other-crime”
prior
evidence is offered
show that
evidence, it
attempting
prior
is
to show that
by
parties make it
crimes committed
third
crimes
by
committed
the defendant make it
likely
less
that the defendant committed the
likely
more
that the defendant has committed
which
charged,
crime for
the defendant is
see
the crime for
charged.
which
or she is
458,
Bock,
449,
229
State v.
Minn.
39 N.W.2d
(1949).
887,
Because
of all
evidence
crimes commit
purposes
Because the
types
by the
which the two
of evidence are
ted
defendant make it more likely
offered
divergent,
are so
I am unconvinced that the
the defendant committed the crime for which
apply
same standards should
for admission of
charged,
he or she is
all
evi
“other-crime”
both
and reverse
401;
dence is relevant.
Minn.
See
R. Evid.
Spreigl,
495-96,
2. As we tendency noted inevitable of the tribunal —whether judge give weight relevant, i.e., excessive That such former misconduct is —is exhibited, vicious record of crime thus probative persuade gen- has value to us of the strongly either to allow it too disposition, to bear on the eral trait or be cannot doubted. * * * present charge, may proof or to it It take almost be said that it is because justifying guilt relevancy irrespective this indubitable such condemnation present it objectionable, charge. It excluded. value, 495-96, (cita appreciable probative because it has no Minn. omitted). because has too much. The natural and tion *12 proffers probative value substan- who the “other crime’s” it is the defendant When evidence, however, analysis tially preju- the outweighs danger its of unfair “other-crime” unfairly prejudicial nature party proffering on If the the is centers not the dice. evidence evidence, however, but the defendant, question of otherwise relevant the is the “other itself. Unlike “third-party issue of relevance simi- the crime” was so whether defendant, by the “other crimes” committed it in- charged lar the crime that can be to parties by typically third committed crimes” party also committed ferred that the third the determination wheth are irrelevant to charged. is the crime for which the defendant crime for committed the er the defendant I the crime” of- agree Because that “other charged. general As a is which he or she by the in this was not fered defendant case murders, matter, burgla of other evidence charged to crime that it can be so similar the ries, rapes committed in the or robberies party that the third also committed inferred country not city, county, or do state same which the defendant was the crime for likely more less that certain make it or join by I the charged, result reached the murder, the committed criminal defendant majority.3 or burglary, robbery rape or for which he conclusion, agree Despite this I cannot such, of “third- charged. is As evidence she majority apply- with or either the dissent inadmissible, will be party generally crimes” whereby ing a rule a criminal defendant can un evidence will not because we fear such “third-party establish relevance of a the fairly prejudice jury, because evidence by showing only “third-party crime” that the it “third-party neither crimes” makes to “substantially is similar the crime crime” likely likely nor that the defendant more less charged.” Crime statistics demonstrate the is the for which he or she committed crimes crimes, many closely similar re- existence Evid. 401. That all charged. Minn. R. See time, by many lated in committed unrelated however, changes, “third-party the when drug-related In persons. the case of mur- to one for which the crime” is so similar night handgun der committed with a begin ques we charged is to defendant large city, example, a creative defense charged prop tion the state has whether attorney might any be able to find number of Bock, person. 229 Minn. er See “substantially similar” murders committed instances, we allow N.W.2d at 892. those any given within area and time. Without aof “third- the defendant to offer evidence characteristics, distinguishing more such purpose casting party crime” for the doubt although sufficient “substantial similarities” — on the state’s claim. Id. Unlike evidence probative already to increase the value of defendant, by “other committed crimes” magically relevant evidence—do trans- relevant, always of “other which are form irrelevant into rele- otherwise by parties crimes” committed third becomes vant evidence. similarity only relevant when “third-party crime” the crime which necessary I is time do feel it this charged is such that it can the defendant is appropriate for deter- define standard person com be inferred the same who mining “third-party when crimes” become “third-party crime” also mitted the commit time, I relevant. At the same feel is crime for which the defendant ted the necessary to accentuate the differences be- charged. admissibility requirements tween the for evi- dence of “other crimes” committed properly
Before a court can determine committed defendant and “other crimes” materiality of “other-crime” relevance parties. recognize third dis- evidence, therefore, Failure such identify party it must only tinctions not will allow criminal defen- party prof- If proffering the evidence. state, parade every “substantially similar” fering dants question the evidence purpose sufficiently before the crime is whether “other crime” was guilt, it will charged casting doubt on the defendant’s similar to the crime to ensure proof unique provide so 3. At time offer Americans was unusual no defendant party handgun also using third committed the act of a .22 caliber to shoot inference charged. which the defendant was five into a vehicle with Asian- crime for or six bullets filled
4 n justice the interests of neither nor altercation. I do not single serve believe this result, join majori- efficiency. As a can provides difference reasonable basis ex- ty only. its result clude This court has allowed the state to intro PAGE, (concurring specially). Justice duce, defendant, against a “other crimes” *13 Tomljanovich’s in join special I Justice con- similarity much involving less
currence.
charged
presented
crime than that
here.
(Minn.
Cogshell,
en very at the least today, we should
the court evenhandedly, treating defen-
apply rule we do the state when the same as
dants of other crimes the introduction
comes to on the af- majority relies discretion making courts eviden-
forded to the trial But appropriately so.
tiary rulings, and determining that discretion is when-
rules for both sides in a should be the same
abused *14 matter, defendant. the state
criminal say the trial court is simply should
We allowing the introduction mar-
correct in supports
ginally relevant evidence, which is excluding
state’s case relevant, supports the defense when
more
position. this in- court in
I believe trial erred, the error was harm-
stance reverse.
less. would therefore Minnesota, Respondent,
STATE of WHITTAKER, Appellant.
Karon Allen
No. CX-96-1641.
Supreme of Minnesota. Court
Aug.