*1 (3 Hymеs’ firing by to National. (1954), citing Wigmore, Evidence Of course, strategy, attorney’s mental ed.) purpose privilege of the is § legal preparing impressions, and theories openly to confide encourage the client for trial shall not be discoverable. Hick- fully attorney in his without fear that and Taylor, man v. U.S. S.Ct. divulged will bе the communications and to retrial, Hymes L.Ed. 451 In the attorney effectively to act more enable the permitted to evi- shall also be introduce on behalf of his client. question dence on the whether considera- peculiar feel We that under employment agree- tion was for the case, inquiry facts of this into certain issues alleged have ment he is executed to proper. Hymes is Because consulted the patent transfer the to National. lawyer knowledge revealed his of and and Reversed and remanded for a new trial. texture, interests' in roll-on and the law very firm on the in turn advised National matters, company same derived an un SCOTT, JJ., part took TODD and no expense
fair in this suit at the benefit the consideration or decision of this case. Hymes. Consequently, Hymes should be
permitted to ask the officers of National questions of the law employees firm ownership royalty
as to interests in the
patent.
Similarly, the law firm should not have pertain- in its
used all the information files meetings
ing correspondence with patent
Hymes prosecute application National,
on behalf of should nоt have used against information in the lawsuit
Hymes, and should have then not denied
Hymes access to information in the law pertaining firm’s files to communications Minnesota, Respondent, STATE of meetings between the law firm and employees dealing officers and of National topics. the same We do know LEE, Appellant. James Edward Hymes provе whether can his case No. 48409. use of witnesses of National and of the law firm, permitted oppor- but he should be Supreme of Minnesota. Court tunity to do so.
Aug.
We thus reverse and remand the
case new for a trial on all issues. On re
mand, represent the law firm shall not Na Hymes permitted
tional. shall be to sub witnesses,
poena question all
employees or officers of National or of the firm,
law of who questions on the patent
own the and who was to derive the Hymes
benefits thereof. shall also be al
lowed to subpoena, from both National and firm, any
the law pertaining and all records
to the application patent existing *3 Defender, Jones,
C. Paul Public Robert Christie, Jr., Oliphant, Allen E. Asst. Public Defenders, appellant. Minneapolis, for Gen., Spannaus, Atty. Gаry Warren Han- sen, Jr., Sp. At- Norman B. Coleman Asst. Gen., Paul, Mattson, tys. DeWayne P. St. Rochester, County Atty., respondent. for TODD, YETKA, Heard before SCOTT, JJ., and considered and decided the court en banc.
YETKA, Justice. appeal by
This is an defendant James Lee first-degree from a for conviction murder by jury County in Winona District Court. The court sentenced the defendаnt to life imprisonment, pursuant to Minn.St. 609.- 185(1). We affirm. questions appeal
The on are: presented refusing the trial 1. Did court err request an instruction on defendant’s manslaughter the lesser included offense degree? in the first Amend- 2. Were defendant’s Fourth rights when the trial court ment violated seized admitted into evidence near the farmhouse in which the defend- ant’s former wife resided? err in
3. Did the trial court testimony concerning an in- into evidence away. police car was later found drove The defendant made criminating statement abandoned, as a result front tires flat both killing? before the about 4 weeks Defendant being over а curb. driven beyond a evidence establish Does the car and driven to the escaped to his pre- killing was doubt that reasonable wife was resid- his former farmstead where meditated? of Roches- 25 to 30 miles outside ing, about denied a fair 5. Was provided by one Acting on information ter. explain refused the triаl court because friends, police went of the defendant’s of a verdict consequences the defend- farmstead and arrested insanity? reason of guilty by ant. May evening On Defendant contends in a friend’s car riding ant with others instructed the as to court should have manslaughter and con- seeing after a moviе in Rochester the lesser crime of *4 degree. argued It is that Drs. Robert Ni- Defendant had a suming four to six beers. testified that the de- ven and John Graf About shotgun possession. in his sawed-off state of extreme fear fendant was in a m., to leave the defendant was about 1:30 a. decedent, and he shot the panic at thе time he to his own car when car and return evidence from fright constitutes that such Mustang coming down the street. noticed a the could have found which the and rode got back into the car quickly He passion. heat of in a defendant acted Mustang followed. as the around the block into a the others then drove Defendant and 609.20(1) defines man Minn.St. Mustang lot the shopping parking center as degree as: slaughter in the first car and maneuvered the continued to follow causpng] death of “Intentionally Mustang parking as it left the behind the passion of person in the heat another area. or acts of anoth- provoked by such words whether he should shoot Defendant asked ordinary person a provoke er as would taillight, although and Mustang’s out the circumstances; like self-control under no, * * *» fired his friends said one of of the other car. The Mus- in the direction lesser determining whether The test high a tang immediately sped away, and to a be submitted degrees of a crime are to occurred, a As this speed chase ensued. would (1) whether the evidence jury is: pur- deputy sheriff observed the chase of the less- a conviction reasonably support which sued the vehicle in crime, (2) the evidence er instruc- riding. yelling Defendant stаrted finding guilty of not a support would also driver, finally pulled into tions to the who Merrill, 274 greater crime. State parking lot where the car Apache Mall Leinweber, (Minn.1978); around, fishtailed, dep- spun and died. The Minn. up the front of the car uty drove warrants such the evidence Where told stopped away. 3 feet Dеfendant about give instruction, court must an him, him,” ram but she the driver to “ram the de- Unless appropriate instructions. the car motor was unable to do so because instructions, it is error fendant waives such deputy hurried to- was still dead. As the jury, degrees to the the lesser not to submit driver, get wards the defendant started to extraordinary where except in the situation said, him, got kill out of the car and “I’ve supported so is otherwise failure do got I’ve to kill him.” He then fired trial court’s discre- proper exercise of the twice, wounding depu- shotgun fatally the defendant re- prejudice and no tion ty. N.W.2d 126. sults. manslaughter may be a Immediately shooting, Although after the homicides, in certain erratically lesser included offense police ant ran to the car and prejudiced by the situation does not the absence of instruction in the instant case 609.20(1). concerning degree manslaughter. fall within the ambit of Under § circumstances, fright may approрriate It is also contended that the trial meaning of “heat of considered within court erred in into evidence a however, there must be words or passion”; shotgun allegedly obtained an unconsti provoke person acts of another that would tutional search and seizure to which no under like circum- ordinary self-control given. consent had been Here, response the defendant’s stances. particular provoked by any words police After the had arrested the defend- acts of the decedent and was not like ant, they obtained a search warrant and ordinary self-control that of а adjacent searched the farmhouse and the under like circumstances. buildings property shotgun. They shotgun beneath a ma- discovered the car in catching up After spreader yards nure located about 60 passenger, deputy got defendant was a hearing, At the omnibus farmhouse. car, out of his crоssed between the two the trial court found that the search war- vehicles, and moved towards driver’s defective, fatally rant was but declared that deputy window. The had neither said nor either because was admissible anything provoke done the land on which it was found was not sufficiently to cloud his reason and weaken controlled the defendant or his former power, mitigating his will his criminal thus *5 shotgun wife because the could be con- or See, culpability. Boyce, v. 284 Minn. State sidered abandoned. 242, 254, 104, (1969). 112 Con- 170 N.W.2d that sequently, necessary it cannot be said defendant We do not deem it to determine in the course of passion gun acted in such a heat of that instruc- whether the was found search, although included offense were an unconstitutional we do tions on the lesser gun approxi- was discovered required. note that mately 180 feet from the house where de- trial support Further court’s de- fendant resided and was hidden under a recently in the termination is found decided right that defendant had no cultivator Merrill, supra. After con- case of State v. belonged to his landlord. use and that We suming pint brandy, 12 beers and ¾ of a do not decide because the intro- the issue landlady during the defendant murdered his prejudicial shotgun duction of dispute a The unpаid over his rent. defend- of law. Defend- defendant as a matter murder, charged jury ant was with a dispute ant does not that he had was instructions for murder in the deputy. or it and killed the that he fired degrees and second after weapon was Even if we were to assume the jury court as to first refused to instruct evidence, imрermissibly introduced into degree manslaughter. Following his con- light error was harmless in of the over- murder, degree viction for first defendant bearing whelming evidence on defendant’s appealed, arguing jury that the could have guilt. reasonably only found that he had intended harm, argues further that great bodily to inflict not to murdеr 3. Defendant erroneously into evi- rejected her. This court the assertion trial court admitted dence, testimony holding premeditation objection, that since and intent over a witness’s found, present, jury were as the so that had stated about 4 weeks shooting absence of instruction on the lesser offense that if he were defendant) (the prejudice stopped by policeman, did not the defendant. 274 a he case, insists that N.W.2d 105. In the instant since the would shoot him. Defendant irrelevant, that premeditation found that and intent is remote and evidence present, to inflate his similarly were the defendant was defendant mаde the statement
901
cumulative, in
testimony
light
of all
is cumulative
image, and that
statements,
already
had
testi-
error
witness
ant’s acts and
that
because another
made that state-
may
that
made in
par-
fied
the trial court
have
this
ment.
ruling was
ticular
harmless.
sufficiency
of the evidence used
logically tends
Any evidence that
beyond
premeditation1
a rea-
establish
a
fact
issue
prove
disprove
material
challenged.
is also
sonable doubt
Defend-
Morrill,
86,
v.
270 Minn.
is relevant. Boland
ant
that he
maintains
suffers
mental
711,
401,
98,
(1965); Rule
132
719
possessing
abnormality
precluded
that
his
Rules of Evidence. Whether ev
Minnesota
mind for
required statе of
first or
objected
practices
events
past
idence of
murder,
degree
second
he was intoxi-
on the
ground
relevancy
is admissible
shooting,
cated at the time of the
and that
is a
of the
decision within the discretion
plan
there
a
to kill the
was no evidence of
See,
Ossenfort v. Associatеd
court.
deputy.
Inc.,
672,
Producers,
Milk
254 N.W.2d
(Minn.1977).
pre-existing
Premeditation denotes a
yardstick
There is no absolute
more
involving
reflection and deliberation
practice
event
can be held to be
an
Keaton,
than a
intent to kill.
v.
mere
State
Swain, 269
remote.
In
v.
N.W.2d 707
State
363,
359,
650,
104 N.W.2d
(Minn.1978),
argued that
tes-
mind,
(1960). Being
process
pre
of the
that he had
timony concerning
threat
subjective
meditation is
and therefore in
made to
mother 10 months before he
his
Gavie,
capable
proof,
of direct
State
only once
murdered her and had made
was
44,
(1951);
Minn.
48 N.W.2d
too
irrelevant. This court held
remote and
therefore,
it must
found
reasonable
rеmote, and
it was not too
that be-
evidence.
inference from
other
intent,
cause
bore on
was
it
Campbell,
Minn.
not an
of the trial court’s discretion
abuse
The
in this case
to admit
State refusing jury dispo as to the to instruct N.W.2d 628 guilty by found not
sition of a defendant present at the shoot Further, The witnesses reason of mental illness. under that the ing testified consistently procedure, our rules of criminal drunk, speech request question that his that the appear right did not to be had a ques slurred, separated mental illness be that he did lose 20.02, 6, See, guilt. Rule subd. Rules tion of Although may coordination. Procedure. Criminal disorder,2 none of personality have had a testified that the de expert witnesses Affirmed. contrary, Dr. fendant was insane. On Schwartz, psychiatrist, felt Carl forensic OTIS, (concurring specially). Justice under defendant was sane expressed in the I adhere to the views Thus, ample there is M’Naughten rule.3 Carignan, v. 271 N.W.2d dissent State only that defendant’s evidence to show not J., 442, (Otis, dissenting in (Minn.1978) having his prevent mental state did not concurring part), but do not part and that he had requisite premeditation, but appropriate apply this an case to consider killing. premeditated the the rule there advocated. argued Finally, it is that de fendant was fair trial the lower denied a explain
court’s refusal
consequences guilty a verdict of not insanity.
reason of jurisdic
Although recognizing that a few
tions
be instructed as to
allow the
guilty
of not
consequences of a verdict
Minnesota, Appellant,
see,
g.,
STATE of
insanity,
Lyles
reason of
e.
v.
States,
22,
U.S.Apр.D.C.
United
v.
denied,
(1957),
F.2d 725
certiorari
356 U.S.
CLARK,
Fulstrom,
Bernard
Jack
et
997,
(1958);
posed
matter
on a defendant
is a
of law
*7
Aug.
province
within the exclusive
of the court.
Rehearing Denied
Oct.
year
This
less than a
issue was addressed
ago in
Carignan,
(Minn.1978), in this court reaffirmed which Bott,
State v. (1976), where the trial court psychiatrists psychologists incapable understanding proceedings 2. Several defense; making called state. Their but he shall not be ex- generally liability except upon proof indicated that defendant cused from criminal strong committing alleged suffers from asocial tendencies and has crim- that at the time of paranoid-schizoid personality. laboring under such a inal act he was defect causes, reason, from one of these as not to M’Naughten rule is contained in Minn.St. act, know the nature of his or that it was 611.026, provides: “No shall be wrong.” tried, sentenced, punished crime mentally mentally while ill or deficient so as to