*1 part, part, reversed Affirmed
remanded. Minnesota, Respondent,
STATE LEJA, Appellant.
Tina DeAnn
No. C9-02-863.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
July *2 provocation, little or no
gruesome. With younger Darnell and his brother Smith and murdered Holder in Chaka assaulted and then dismembered Darnell’s residence body. Darnell then directed Andre Leja appellant Parker and Tina DeAnn dispose body parts. of Holder’s For his in Holder’s central involvement and convicted of Darnell Smith was tried first-degree premeditated murder imprisonment sentenced to for life without possibility September of release. upheld Darnell conviction we Smith’s murder. first-degree premeditated for Smith, 19, 30, State pleaded guilty Chaka Smith felony murder and was second-degree An- years imprisonment. to 20 sentenced Cromett, of the State F. Office Michael cooperated Parker with the authori- dre Defender, Respon- for Minneapolis, Public ties, pleaded guilty an offender dent. fact, and sentenced to 5 after the General, Hatch, Attorney years imprisonment. Michael Paul, Klobuchar, Amy Hennepin Coun- St. Leja girlfriend Darnell’s and the Richardson, Attorney, Minne- ty Michael invited Holder to Darnell’s person who Respondent. apolis, for evening on the of the murder. residence direction, days after the
At Darnell’s two helped dispose murder she conduct, Leja body parts. Based on this second-degree was tried and convicted OPINION and was sentenced to felony murder ANDERSON, H., PAUL Justice. months, years imprison- or 17 and one-half repre- received ment. The sentence 210- Leja challenges her Tina DeAnn months, upward departure of 60 sented second-degree felony month sentence sentence years, presumptive from the or 5 appeals concluded murder. The court of felony murder. The second-degree did not abuse its the district court appeal this question presented from departed upward it discretion when Sentencing whether, the Minnesota under es- presumptive sentence the 150-month Guidelines, justifies up- Leja’s conduct this Sentencing by the Minnesota tablished of 60 months. sentencing departure ward conclude that Because we Guidelines. underlying of- commit the Leja did not in 1998 while Leja met Darnell Smith felony murder fense guard as a at the Still- employed she was way, we reverse and serious particularly where Smith was serv- water State Prison presumptive sentence to the modify conduct for criminal sexual ing a sentence sentence of 150 months. developed a Leja and Smith with a child. and, as a relationship romantic prohibited that the mur- begin by recognizing result, terminated Leja’s employment was Bobby particularly Dee Holder was der of Smith, him telling 1999. After termination of her lied to that Holder’s October employment, wrong continued her relation- number was number. For the by writing hour, him love letters ship with Smith next Smith forced to remain on while he served the remainder of his sen- subsequently the bed. When Holder *3 May in tence. After Smith’s release Leja’s phone, gave called cell Smith continued, took a turn relationship but Leja Leja phone back to to answer. testi- worse, controlling, for the with Smith beat- calling Leja say fied that Holder was to humiliating Leja. ing, and pick up that he wanted to tools he some at had left Smith’s residence. Holder to arranged late June sell some tire rims to Smith. Holder and key The state’s witnesses to the subse- Leja Mauricio then in his friend Jones met quent July youn- events were Smith’s lot, parking Leja paid where McDonald’s ger girl- brother Ramon and Ramon’s for the rims. Jones testified that on the friend, Valley. Katrina Valley Ramon and McDonald’s, way to Holder stated “he they that testified drove to Smith’s resi- [Leja].” with would like to have sex While p.m. They dence around or 10:00 9:30 en- Holder, Leja meeting was with Smith present tered the residence and were Leja’s Holder on in- phone, talked to cell Leja bedroom when Smith’s received the sisting that Holder install the rims on his Valley call from Holder. testified that she car. Jones testified that Holder did not Leja in saw the bedroom and saw Smith Leja’s say anything sexual while he was in sitting cleaning on the bed a handgun. presence, way that on but back from According Valley, Leja to when received McDonald’s, Holder “he said could have Holder, call from up Smith “scooted Leja sex with her.” testified that she was Leja ear, whispered behind” and in her Holder, not interested did not flirt with “Tell him I don’t live here. That this is him, express and that Holder did not an your Valley Leja house.” then heard tell interest in her. also that Jones testified Holder, “He’s not here now. right You being Holder was nervous about around Valley Leja can come over.” testified that Smith and did not trust him. While at appeared Valley nervous. stated that evening, Smith’s residence later that same shortly call, telephone after this she and rims, Holder started install the but did Ramon left the residence. not finish because he needed some other tools. Ramon testified that when he entered bedroom, Leja talking Smith’s on her July Leja a girlfriend
On visited and phone. cell Ramon testified that he saw talked about her relationship troubled with whispering Leja’s Smith ear as she Leja subsequently Smith. went to Smith’s phone, Leja talked on the and heard tell- being residence after told that Smith caller, ing the my “He’s not here. This is supposed she was to be there. be- Smith house. You can come over now.” Ramon friend, Leja at angry visiting came her also testified that that Smith said he want- keys, took car her and ordered her onto ed Holder to come over because he Leja the bed. testified that Smith then hit clock, thought Holder wanted to her an alarm have sex with which caused her Leja Leja and that he used to lure Holder practice, bleed. As was his standard to the residence. Ramon phone, Smith took cell testified that checked it calls, questioned say Smith did not that incoming lured Holder the source of to come over promise about certain calls she had of sexual received, including one from Holder. favors. Both Ramon Valley said that Parker, hand loading put gun Smith his on which cleaning, or holding, Smith waistband and Par- was tucked told during the call. large handgun help get he him to rid of the ker wanted from that after the call Ramon stated body. Parker testified he was afraid him, Holder, presence in the told Smith him would kill if he did not Smith Valley, guy “That was the Leja and comply with Smith’s directive. After you my rims. want putting on find a attempt disposal unsuccessful site up”— fuck him help me stay here Paul, had for the Saint Smith Ramon, fight According him. meaning him help put containing Parker the cooler had no reac- request heard this body parts into car. Valley that she to it. But testified tion *4 day, July Leja Smith told to ask Ramon The next never heard Smith personally body that and that Parker fight. get a Ramon testified rid of Holder’s help to Valley “staged argument” watching then would be her. Parker testified he and they preparing dispose to out of the situation. that were to get order while body, Leja get would not Smith let arrived at the resi- subsequently Holder sight Leja and that too far out of his was located. bedroom was dence where Smith’s In a crying. videotaped often statement door, him at front while Leja greeted police, made to the Parker said the follow- Chaka, younger brother who Smith and his ing when asked about the scene when before, shortly hid from Hold- arrived had body him in the parts Smith showed bed- er. After Holder entered Smith’s cooler: tools, into Smith came room to retrieve Q: Tina there? did she Was How Holder, bedroom, and he and grabbed look? Leja began hitting him. testified
Chaka done, dressed, Very makeup it A: all struggled, making that well Holder shit, residence, that and still looked like she wanted front door of the but then she shots, up. though men to fuckin’ throw Even she and saw the two heard two groomed and all that she body into the bedroom. was well drag jump like she wanted to out of Leja that she witnessed Holder’s looked testified guess by fuckin’ Then I participate did not it. her skin. but Rather, figured brought time out that he had up said that she was curled she she wanted to fuckin’ shooting took me into this shit she a on the bed when the ball cry. got as we a little second crying. testified that As soon place and was She like, they “I alone can’t believe asleep with Holder’s still she she fell did, you that in this shit.” got bedroom. he lying on the floor of Smith’s that told him that Ramon testified Smith Holder’s car told Parker drive Smith died, Holder had Chaka held Hold- after Leja, driving her and follow who would Leja up. cut it er’s while Smith Leja then set off for own car. Parker and did not know how Chaka testified she Wisconsin, at they left Holder’s car where at the happened to be at the residence a lot western Wisconsin. park-and-ride of the murder. time abandoning testified that after Parker car, into car and got to Holder’s he key respect witness with The state’s they to her father’s Wis- body parts together drove disposal of Holder’s Leja way, de- Along consin farm. getting Parker was Andre Parker. While “forced her to ma- how Smith had July on Smith scribed cigarette from Smith him, Holder, coming into nipulate Mr. body parts him Holder’s which showed residence,” and how Smith had assault- According to his stored a cooler. were (inaudible) ed and then shot Holder. Parker testified at least 200 mother fuckin’ Leja cigarettes finally [got] flew until we cried for while before she told By fuckin’ happened. had to that house. the time we Parker what (inaudible). got stop buy had to Leja much of corroborated Parker’s tes- cigarettes fuckin’ some more and we had timony Leja about the drive Wisconsin. already packs smoked about five or six testified that she and Parker drove to her shook, people. between two She was body. dispose father’s farm to of Holder’s here, she fuckin’ cried the whole time there, they attempted bury Once Hold- I (imitating crying talking). Tina picked that she er’s torso. said this, why don’t believe I don’t know he spot close to the house so that her father this, this, it did wasn’t to be like suppose fact, would discover the torso. (inaudible) me, thought he doesn’t love father discovered Holder’s torso the next (inaudible), (inaudible) he mother fuckin’ day. crying Parker testified that (inaudible). kill me they when buried Holder’s torso. later, days July About ten on or around things testified that she disturbed in the 17, Leja boyfriend contacted an old who garage fingerprints and left hair and so lived in Montana and she and Smith even- that it was obvious she had been at *5 Montana, tually staying drove to the farm. day. Leja friend for half a told her friend burying After on torso afraid, Leja that she hoped, was and as farm, Leja and Parker drove north to Su- suspected her friend something was Wisconsin, perior, and returned to Minne- internet, wrong, checking did some on the Duluth, by way sota of and then drove police day. and called the the next After south on Interstate 35. At Parker’s di- Paul, returning to Saint Smith decided to rection, Leja exited the interstate when go Mississippi a funeral and took they were 50 or 60 miles south Leja him. with Casino, Black Bear which in is located In August, Smith and were arrest- Carlton, Minnesota, a town about miles by police Mississippi ed and returned to heading south of Duluth. After east for Minnesota to stand trial. Smith was mile, less than one Parker exited the car murder, charged first-degree by tried fingers and cut the off of Holder’s hands. convicted, a jury, guilty, found and sen- driving The two then continued until they imprisonment tenced to for life without the driveway reached a on a dirt road located possibility of release. Chaka Smith was in a point, wooded area. At this Parker also plead- arrested the murder and he exited car again and threw Holder’s guilty ed to second-degree felony murder remaining body parts into the woods. years and was sentenced to 20 imprison- Leja subsequently Parker and returned to ment. Leja’s residence, Woodbury, Minnesota car,
cleaned the
and then showered.
Based on her involvement with Holder’s
When asked about
reaction when murder, Leja
charged
was
with second-
they
disposing
were
of Holder’s
degree felony
accomplice-after-
parts, Parker made the following state-
the-fact,
assault,
second-degree
and con-
police:
ment to
spiracy
commit second-degree
assault.
shook,
trial,
This bitch is
Tina
(imitating
cry-
At
admitted
she did not
ing)
fucking shaking
This bitch is
angry,
like
warn Holder that
nor
Smith
(inaudible) cigarettes.
leaf. You
did she ask Smith or his brother Chaka to
(inaudible)
Holder,
all
you stop assaulting
do
this.
bet
testifying that she
Leja,
murder conviction. call the
did she
Neither
“paralyzed.”
(Minn.App.2003). The court
Wisconsin,
although N.W.2d
trip
police on
accomplice-after-
appeals
vacated
point
and was at some
phone
a cell
she had
conviction. The court held that
the-fact
she
Leja admitted that
car.
alone
her
liability
accomplice
imposed
because
her knowl-
family
about
not tell
did
of-
Minn.Stat.
609.05 for the first
under
and that she
body parts
edge of Holder’s
felony murder—
second-degree
her.
they questioned
police
when
lied
fense —
commission
principal
makes
trial, Leja requested
close of her
At the
offense,
guilty
of that
she cannot also
necessity.
on both duress
instructions
Leja, accomplice-after-the-fact.
from
there was evidence
argued that
She
The court affirmed
at
467.
that she
jury could conclude
which the
second-degree felony murder con-
both the
5, 2001,
July
from Smith on
under duress
depar-
viction and the
days later
her actions two
and that
that,
Id. at 466-67.1 The
court held
ture.
jus-
body were
of Holder’s
helping dispose
adequately sup-
“is
departure
because the
in-
necessity. The district
tified
of con-
aggravating
factor
ported
duress,
jury on the defense
structed the
it
not need to
body,”
cealment of the
did
on ne-
an instruction
give
declined to
but
that she was not
argument
reach
cessity.
Id.
at
as to Holder.
position
of trust
Leja guilty of second-
jury found
murder, accomplice-after-
felony
degree
court for further
Leja petitioned this
assault,
the-fact,
second-degree
(1)
review
convictions on all
court entered
the district
(2)
conviction;
assault in the
murder
imposed a
The court then
three counts.
*6
(3)
conviction;
up-
second-degree
second-
months for the
sentence of 210
departure for the second-
ward durational
conviction,
up-
an
felony murder
degree
felony murder conviction. We
degree
60 months
departure of
ward durational
upward
as to the
duration-
granted review
The court
presumptive
from the
sentence.
state
only. While the
departure
al
issue
body and
concealment of Holder’s
cited the
trust” as an
position
of
of
advanced “abuse
of trust” as
position
of a
“abuse
it did not
sentencing,
factor at
aggravating
depar-
supporting the
factors
aggravating
in the court
position
that
either
maintain
a consecu-
imposed
court also
ture. The
Therefore, the
in this court.
appeals
of
tive,
sentence of 81
although stayed,
under the
us is whether
only issue before
accomplice-after-the-fact
for the
months
Guidelines, Leja’s
Sentencing
Minnesota
conviction.
body
of Holder’s
in the concealment
aiding
ground
sup-
convictions,
adequate
an
parts provides
Leja appealed all three
court’s determination
port the district
sentencing departure
upward
as the
well
felony depart upward.2
associated
ato
statutory
must be submitted
maximum
the court
Although
brief to
1.
raised
beyond
doubt.”
apparently
proved
did not ad-
a reasonable
appeals,
jury,
that court
of
490,
2348,
assault in the
the conviction for
S.Ct.
147
dress
120
530 U.S.
Leja,
24, 2004,
660 N.W.2d
degree.
State v.
(2000).
second
See
June
after
435
On
L.Ed.2d
(Minn.App.2003).
case,
459
argument
present
in the
we heard oral
Blakely Washington that
held in
the Court
Jersey, the United States
Apprendi
v. New
In
pur-
Apprendi
'statutory
maximum’
"the
the fact
Supreme Court
that "other than
held
may
judge
poses
sentence
is the maximum
conviction, any
prior
fact that increases
aof
re-
solely
of the facts
impose
on the basis
prescribed
beyond the
penalty for a crime
1(4).
Sentencing
of the Minnesota Sen Minnesota
purpose
Guidelines
is to establish rational
tencing Guidelines
“This court has discretion
individual
standards
order to re
consistent
modify
cases to
appeal-
sentences of an
Minnesota
sentencing disparity.
duce
ing defendant if that
appears to be
I. The Guidelines
Sentencing Guidelines
uniformity.”
interests
fairness
following
that
seek to ensure
sanctions
v. Vazquez,
N.W.2d
proportional
conviction of a
(Minn.1983);
244.11,
Minn.Stat.
subd.
severity
of the offense
conviction 2(b) (2002).
offender’s criminal
and the extent of the
argues
Ming
The state
that State v.
Sen
history.
Sentencing
Id. Minnesota
Guide
Shiue,
(Minn.1982),
Although Blakely
argu
was decided after oral
sentencing ju-
basis of established Minnesota
case, Apprendi
risprudence
ment in this
principles
has been the law
and not based on the
Nevertheless,
of the land
Apprendi/Blakely.
since 2000.
articulated in
Shiue,
that
in
In
we concluded
the use
factor
sen-
aggravating
operate as
aggravating
as an
factor is
concealment
tencing.
justified by two reasons —trauma to close
that
n. 1.
contends
at 58
Id.
independent policy
concerns.
relatives
that concealment
provides
footnote
Schmit
Shiue,
Regarding
at 655.
326 N.W.2d
factor
aggravating
not an
body
concerns,
expressed
we
the concern
policy
makes no effort
the defendant
when
if concealment was not considered an
that
concerning the
information
bargain with
factor,
aggravating
the accused would be
argues
body.
The state
location of
to use the concern of the victim’s
able
not
was dicta and thus
that this footnote
family
negotiate
plea agree-
a favorable
Schmit,
to the determination
essential
disclosing
in return for
the location
ment
recog-
factors were
aggravating
as other
body.
indepen-
Id. These
of the victim’s
support
the double
nized as sufficient
present
concerns are not
here.
policy
dent
departure
that case.
durational
upward
There is no evidence
the record
decision, it
After the Schmit
Leja attempted
bargain
with the author-
reviewed another sen-
until 1998 that we
using
knowledge
ities
of where Hold-
involving concealment of
departure
tence
body was buried.
er’s
factor.
In State
aggravating
as an
Griller,
aggravating
particular
af-
factor of
cru-
we
v. Folkers and State
elty
looks to whether
victim was
sentencing departures
“[t]he
based
firmed
cruelty
particular
treated with
for which
fact that
the defendant had
part on the
should be held re-
victim’s
the individual
the murder
concealed
offender
—even
Sentencing
sponsible.”
no
Minnesota
Guide-
cases there had been
though
both
II.D.2(b)(2)
added). Here,
(emphasis
body’s
negoti-
location to
lines
effort to use the
Folkers,
than
undisputed
it is
was more
charge.
favorable
ate a more
Griller,
(Minn.1998);
bystander. But she was not
an innocent
decisions,
person
In
who assaulted and shot Holder
at 744 n. 9.
both
body.
Shiue,
Unquestion-
dismembered his
not Schmit.
its
we cited
but
below,
ably,
gruesome
Holder’s murder was a
appeals
court of
noted
decision
Schmit,
dispute
can
no
that as
de-
crime and there
we have “affirmed
that since
family
Holder and his
were treat-
concealment of the
a result
partures
and cited
However, that
cruelty.
attempt
particular
was no
ed with
body even where there
broth-
pur-
cruelty was meted out
the Smith
bargaining
the information for
use
ers,
Leja. Darnell Smith hit Holder
(citing
at 467
poses.” Leja, 660 N.W.2d
Folkers).
note, however,
blocked
flashlight.
Chaka Smith
Griller
escape by standing
departures in Holder’s means
*8
his hands on the
doorway
putting
on the
and Griller were based
both Folkers
factors,
ig-
Darnell
shot Holder and
of which walls.
Smith
multiple aggravating
pleas
mercy.
Both Smith
single
was but a
nored his
concealment of the
body, and
Holder’s
not decided a case
brothers dismembered
factor. We have
alone,
Parker and
concealment,
it
Darnell who directed
standing
was
was
where
body. There is
Leja to conceal Holder’s
aggrava-
a sufficient
approvingly
cited
suggests
record which
depar-
no evidence
supporting
upward
an
ting factor
Leja lured Holder
Smith’s
and that when
Additionally,
both Folkers
ture.
residence,
that Holder would be
Griller,
she knew
who concealed
the defendant
murdered,
would
let alone that she
committed
person
the same
who
was
body.
is no
conceal his
There
directed to
underlying murder.
Norris,
Leja
any
in the record that
felt
committed.
evidence
See State v.
(Minn.1988)
61, 71
bring
(holding
ill-will toward Holder or intended to
N.W.2d
imposed by
about his demise.
the sentence
the district court
unduly exaggerated
criminality
of de-
analyze
specific
As we
facts
conduct). Leja’s participation
fendant’s
case,
mindful that
especially
of this
we
remains,
the concealment of
with-
departure requires
the standard for
bargaining
out more such as her
aggravating
factors be “substantial and
authorities,
support
does not
an upward
Griller,
at
compelling.”
744.
Shine,
departure.
durational
See
compelling
circumstances
Substantial
Therefore,
N.W.2d at 655.
hold that
we
are those which demonstrate that the “de
the distinct court abused its discretion
significantly
fendant’s conduct
more
departed upward
pre-
when it
from the
typically
or less serious than that
involved
sumptive
by
sentence established
in ques
the commission of the crime
Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines. Ac-
Cox,
Here,
tion.”
451 prohibited entering convic- and of accesso- have been from charged with convicted also for, fact; sentencing, that she tions and both offenses. specifically, the ry after (2002) 609.035, Smith, § person (pro- 1 intentionally aided Darnell Minn.Stat. subd. “if a viding exceptions, a crimi- that with certain by her to have committed known concealing evi- conduct more than one act, person’s or constitutes “by destroying nal state, crime, false or under the of the providing offense laws this of that dence crime, may punished only or be for one of person information the misleading about offenses.”). prose- the obstructing investigation the by Minn.Stat. the crime.” See cution of of convic appeals The court vacated the (2002).2 609.495, 3 § subd. tion and sentence the offense of acces fact, the that as a mat sentencing sory holding court conclud- after At district law, accomplice liability accessory imposed after ter of the conviction for ed that § be- Minn.Stat. for the second- separately under 609.05 the fact could sentenced felony princi of the murder part degree offense “not made cause that murder,” offense, and pal as the the commission of that behavioral incident same accessory guilty after that she therefore not also be the offense of could and because accessory “a motivational after fact. v. fact involved different as State * * * (Minn. 459, 465, factor, 660 467 separated Leja, a new element N.W.2d Indeed, time, did of App.2003). grant We not review place motive.” holding by appeals victim’s dis- concealing misconduct court of Leja can days after thus the law of the is that membered occurred two case was, of the be convicted or for the of murder and in the words sentenced time, court, place accessory arising of fact “separated by fense after the district separate from the murder. See State out of the behavioral incident and motive” Johnson, 394, 404, body. my of the 273 Minn. concealment victim’s v. (1966) (in when, law, 517, view, determining as a the dis matter N.W.2d intentional are committed trict court cannot convict or sentence whether crimes incident, arising factors to from a behav single in a behavioral misconduct distinct incident, time, rely upon and “wheth- the court cannot place, be considered ioral a sentence involved was such misconduct enhance segment er the conduct offense, single arising out of by an effort to obtain a for a different motivated objective”). separate behavioral incident. criminal finding court’s have stated that the district agree district rely underlying one “may act of the victim’s dis- on conduct concealing that the support on a sen days departure two after the murder conviction membered “sepa- separate incident tence for a conviction.” was a different behavioral (Minn. Williams, 837, time, from the place rated and motive” Accord, Richardson, 2000). fact, murder; accessory if the State v. offense of (Minn.2003) (“For 267, each same part the fact were a after offense, must incident there be substantial behavioral from compelling depart court would reasons to district 1993, assaulting Ming Shiue any part Sen the act of was enacted after so or took May Holder. Act of Schmit cases were decided. 25, 1993 Minn. ch. art. statute, creating the 3 of the Subdivision Laws 2037. fact, separate accomplice after the crime *10 452 Sentencing pre
Minnesota Guidelines’ concealment and the manner which it sentence.”). sumptive recog have done does not show that aiding also abetting felony unintentional departures ordinarily nized that durational murder was committed in a particularly serious should be confined to consideration of the way. charged Leja The state with aiding surrounding conduct and circumstances abetting second-degree felony murder provide the basis for the offense of fact, and accomplice after the and the conviction, and should not be based on appeals court of ruled that both convictions points evidence the defendant’s could not felony stand. The murder con- guilt of an charged offense that was never viction carried a presumptive sentence of if charged, was dismissed. State v. 150 in prison, approximately months Womack, (Minn. 19-20 same term the trial court im- could have 1982); v. Misquadace, 644 N.W.2d posed for accomplice after fact had it (Minn.2002). For evidence of anoth found the manner of concealment of the er offense to be for a considered body justifiable basis for a durational departure, the other offense must show departure.3 that the defendant committed the offense being particularly accomplice, Leja sentenced As is serious viewed way. Cox, equally law as culpable As we for the stated State v. crime of (Minn.1984): convicted, which she N.W.2d 641 murder, as the actu- individuals who general The issue that faces a sen- ally committed the assault and murder. tencing court in deciding whether to de- such, As she faced the presumptive sen- part durationally is whether the defen- offense, tence for that they same as significantly dant’s conduct was more or they have had would been convicted of less serious than that typically involved offense. But deciding when it comes to in the commission of in ques- the crime whether to durationally depart from the tion. In making this determination the presumptive sentence, participant’s each may not consider evidence that conduct in relation to the is crime individu- points to guilt the defendant’s of some ally out, majority examined. As the points other offense but that does not support the murder here particularly grue- the conclusion that the defendant com- some, and Darnell appropriate- Smith was mitted the in question offense in a par- ly convicted of first-degree premeditated ticularly way. serious Smith, murder. State v. 669 N.W.2d Id. at 643. But the murderous as- Leja’s concealment of body sault of Holder and the dismemberment of separate constitutes the offense of accom- Leja. were not the acts of She plice after the fact. The fact she and also was not convicted of and abet- disposed Andre Parker of Holder’s ting premeditated either or intentional parts states, in various locations in two and cannot be sentenced for those found, some of them never to may words, be have offenses. premeditat- other supported an upward durational departure ed Smith, and intentional acts of Darnell However, for that actor, offense. principal the fact of cannot form the basis Accomplice after the fact is an unranked case in departure which an in sen sentencing guidelines. offense length justified, under the upper tence limit will trial court determined to rank it at what was presumptive length.” double the sentence severity Evans, eight imposed (Minn. then pre- level State v. sumptive 1981) deleted). "[GJenerally 81-month (emphasis term. in a *11 added.) I (Emphasis cannot Leja, murder.” who the sentence enhancing for aided and agree. conduct which was convicted death, causing Holder’s the assault abetted Darnell Leja was love with Smith. kill him.4 to intent
without known prison guard, As a she violated abandoned its con- the state appeal, On a employment began rules and romantic luring act of Holder tention an in- with him while he was relationship sup- egregious as to was so the residence mate, a stating begin that she “chose” to are left and we upward departure, port an knowing he was relationship with Smith Leja’s con- to show that nothing else with 12-year-old girl, a had prison raping for more serious than significantly duct was drugs selling drugs,” “contact with abet- aiding involved typically At suspected gang member. and was Acts felony murder. an unintentional ting trial, Leja admitted that she lied to her accomplice abetting create aiding relationship. about the supervisors subject the accom- liability a crime and for as if he or she the same sentence plice to job, from her she con- being After fired already tak- it. Facts actually committed him, professing writing tinued letters in deter- by legislature en into account such as proclamations her love with degree or seriousness mining the anything much. If there is you I love so for a de- inappropriate bases offense do, you If want I can let me know. State, See, Taylor v. e.g., parture. I’ll it. I’ll do money, get anything (Minn.2003). Unless you. if I I love you could. abetting are so acts of those departure, as to warrant egregious unfolded, proved only words As events her imposed. must be presumptive sentence too true. have us focus on her BLATZ, (dissenting). While would Justice Chief of review regrets, the standard tears and majority’s disagree I Because the evidence that requires us to focus on its trial court abused that the conclusion second-degree murder ver- supports imposing a limited discretion depart decision to the trial court’s dict and dis- departure, respectfully end, Tina To upwardly. of second- Tina was convicted sent.1 trial court crime. As the lynchpin this as felony murder. degree remarked, Leja not allowed Smith if had “par- majority, acknowledged will,” judgment and “good overcome However, in conclud- ticularly gruesome.” Instead, today.” alive Holder “would be upward departure limited ing that a stated, Leja “served Holder’s mother as majority later describes justified, Darnell, platter on a silver [Bobby] up than a nothing “other Leja’s conduct as Darnell was about.” knowing full well what offense typical Gates, activity necessary prove ac- considerations. 4. The level of the de- complice liability a crime is that knowing played a role in its commis- fendant sion, presence, distinguished Although majority of the Court does from mere inaction, acquiescence; Justice Paul knowledge passive join opinion authored in the Anderson, special concurrence re- participation in the offense is not because active reached, however, I will refer to pres- agrees the result quired, and the defendant’s majori- opinion "asthe ence, Justice Paul Anderson’s companionship and conduct before and ty opinion. relevant is committed are the offense after *12 Leja day yard had her in court. She unoccupied told her area of her father’s house story in being being bury of afraid of Smith and Wisconsin to Holder’s torso. After torso, jury controlled him. But the the burying Leja and and Parker contin- judge had to reconcile her lengthy through “remorseful” ued on a drive western reality version of the facts with the stark Wisconsin and northeast Minnesota to of what was—and not—done. In body parts. was abandon the other On cross- end, examination, jury rejected her defense of du- acknowledged that Par- her, ress her for the and convicted death of ker did not threaten did not have a hearing judge, gun, Holder. The the same evi- and did not strike her. dence, decided that her role the crime Leja’s defense that she left “clues” anything “typical.”
was but around property hopes her father’s
Leja’s chilling testimony own being caught tells us is belied her own testi- what, fact, mony. ensued after she lured Hold- only acknowledge Not did she on apartment er to the where he was beaten cross-examination that she knew that the beaten, and shot. As Holder being rural, was she house unoccupied and intervene, try did not sparsely area, and she did not populated she also testified try to help Holder after he was shot. In- that she did not anything tell her father stead, she remained in the bedroom where about help Holder or ask for when her slept Holder was shot and through the father called her and told her he had found night on the floor at the foot the torso buried on property. day his of the bed. up many When she woke after disposing she returned from her, hours later with body parts, Leja Holder’s blood still on was back at work—work- she took a shower and then accompanied ing time, full During two weeks. this father, Smith and Andre Parker to a Paul St. she talked with her her law-student park. they sister, good When could not “find a and coworkers. She never asked spot body,” to leave a any Smith told her to help. of them for She even lied to the body” “take the “get agent and rid of it.” And assigned to investigate Holder’s only she did. Not did she lure Holder to death when he if asked her she knew death, she principal agent was the anything about the death. Instead of the concealment on,” of his dismembered re- seeking help, when the “heat was she mains. fled with Smith to Mississippi. words,
In got own she into her These facts inescapable lead con- car and started driving alone—with her testimony clusion trial that she cell phone Holder’s parts frightened by Smith and “wanted to —and “ packed in a cooler in the trunk get of her car. caught” jurors was not credible. The acknowledging While simply Smith was not did not see her a victim present, that she “did not a gun guilty have to found murder. throat,” her head” or a majority “knife to her she The fails to acknowledge this fact police chose not to call the and did not do and emphasizes instead that “she was not anything to attract person attention of the who assaulted and shot Holder Instead, police. Parker, she led who or body.” dismembered his ig- This focus car, her in following to Wisconsin nores our law that aiding under the picked spot statute, the exact abetting abandon his “criminally is liable” car—in sign front of a parking Holder, lot for the assault of as well as his stating (2002). that the car 609.05, § would be towed for death. Minn.Stat. subd. 1 14 days. swampy By She also chose the back- virtue of her conviction of second-de- (Minn. Jones, jury found gree aided, advised, 1983) added) coun- intentionally (emphasis (discussing seled, the assault conspired statute). to commit abetting Holder, and his death was foreseeable cases, Like a case those this consequence of the assault. Minn.Stat. on where defendant the scene appears 609.19, (2002); 609.05, § subds. has completed. after the crime been 2(1) (2002). subd. *13 fact, Leja that sentencing at admitted ma- the of the Contrary suggestions actions through “ultimately her she caused death, decapitation, dis- jority, the horrific sentencing Leja, In death.” the [Holder’s] memberment, Holder disfigurement and on “principal trial court focused her role” a “distraction]” not be considered should death, noting “footprints in his that her for mur- in his reviewing sentence Nonetheless, chapter.” in the every Indeed, prior have held der. our decisions majority tries isolate conduct at sen- and abettors accountable aiders other in tencing cruelty the inflicted the concealment of “participation her in example, in the crime. For participants that Holder’s and then concludes remains” v. 367 N.W.2d Campbell, the case of State in participation her the concealment (Minn.1985), we 460-61 reviewed remains, more,” support does not “without girlfriend of a departure for the sentencing departure. an brutally who killed a woman. man in only majority is the incorrect Not in the in that case did assist defendant finding Leja played a minor role that murder, boyfriend helped but her actual crime, held, the we never have as this apartment, to the victim’s gain access today, that victim, majority does concealment helped the maced the and conceal affirming up Id. at 457. In for an crime afterward. alone is not a sufficient basis departure, we sentencing the concluded Rather, this has departure. ward that, fac- aggravating addition other an appropri considered concealment to be tors, par- the “murder was committed with sentencing aggravating factor ate ticularly cruelty” explained and “even if years. Ming Shi over 20 See State v. Sen injuries not inflict the brutal defendant did (Minn.1982). ue, 648, 655 326 N.W.2d psychological proceeded and terror which Shine, have affirmed other sen we Since partici- part and were the as part on the tencing departures based legally for those pant responsible she was the that the defendant had concealed fact 609.05,” § the actions under Minn.Stat. Griller, body. v. murder victim’s See State abetting at 461 aiding and statute. Id. (Minn.1998); added). Similarly, in a ease (emphasis Folkers, 321, 327 N.W.2d severely beat- robbery where a victim was Folkers, that the “finding stated that In we en, disagreed we with the trial court’s cruelty particular treated with victim was grounds that did legal determination enough justify depar would be [a] alone that the departure for a on the basis exist ture,” holding the approvingly and cited attack participate did not the defendant victim’s that “concealment Shiue victim, that holding aggravating on an cruelty body particular shows observing present circumstances were jus circumstance appropriate aggravating “[ejven did not inflict the that defendant if Folkers, 581 N.W.2d tifying departure.” victim, in the injury participant on added) Shiue, (citing (emphasis at 327 robbery responsible for legally he was 655). (1980).” at injury 609.05 N.W.2d under Minn.Stat. offense,
The dismemberment of Holder’s sentence for a different out arising remains, separate óf of a concealment some behavioral incident.” recovered, of which never were demon- These statements are be- misleading, victim family strate that the and his were argued cause never that the conceal- particularly cruelty treated with and ade- ment of the arose from a distinct limited quately support trial court’s incident, ap- behavioral and the court of Shiue, In ex- upward departure. we issue, peals never even let mentioned treating that plained concealment as holding alone based its on fact aggravating justified by factor is trau- there were two distinct behavioral inci- ma suffered close relatives. fact, Leja In consistently dents. has taken case, at 655. this position throughout proceed- the trial stopped working mother could so she ings appeal this conduct con- investigate disappearance “day *14 stituted a single behavioral incident. At night”; spent driving through she “hours sentencing, defense counsel stated: him”; in looking Wisconsin the woods of many She’s convicted counts of what bury and she has not been to son able her consider a inci- single to be behavioral him. because she cannot find the rest of dent. She committed a crime and with- majority The states can be dis- “there no interruption up. out covered it pute” that his family “Holder and were In vacating of accomplice- the conviction cruelty,” particular yet treated with some- fact, appeals simply after-the the court of cruelty how concludes that this was concluded not possible, “it is as a matter of Leja. by sentencing, meted out At even law, for principal guilty a of an being Leja’s acknowledged own counsel “[t]he accomplice-after-the-fact.” Leja, State v. pain family,” remarking, she this caused 459, (Minn.App.2003). 660 N.W.2d just “It is inconceivable that would not be Nonetheless, special the per- concurrence an factor.” aggravating in sists calling body the concealment of the “separate a offense.”2 special
The
concurrence asserts that the
concealment of Holder’s
Moreover,
remains cannot be
special
the
as-
concurrence’s
used to enhance the sentence for second-
that
act
concealing
sertion
“the
of
vic-
the
degree felony
relying on the deci-
days
tim’s dismembered
two
after
of appeals,
sion
court
which vacated
a
the murder
different
inci-
was
behavioral
‘separated by time,
conviction and sentence for
of-
place,
the
dent
and motive’
accessory
of
fense
after
fact.
by
the
Accord-
from the
supported
murder” is not
concurrence,
ing to the special
“the
of
of
law
either
facts
this
or
our case
case
the ease is that
cannot be
“[Ajpart
convicted law.
from-the
factors
time and
accessory
sentenced for the offense of
place,
ingredient
of any
essential
test”
arising
after the fact
out of
separate
single
for determining whether there is a
behavioral incident of concealment
behavioral
is
incident whether the conduct
body.”
victim’s
The special
concurrence
“was motivated
a
effort
obtain
“when,
law,
concludes that
single
objective.”
as a matter of
criminal
State v. John-
son,
district
court cannot convict or sen-
273 Minn.
141 N.W.2d
(1966).
arising
case,
tence
misconduct
from a dis- 525
In this
Holder’s remains
incident,
concealed,
tinct behavioral
the court cannot
were
defense
counsel’s
words,
rely upon such
a
misconduct
enhance
so that
could
her-
“extricate
any
relating
state
vacating
did
seek review of
issue
to the
of the conviction.
(3d ed.2001)
noted,
§ 45.4
such Law and Procedure
Leja’s counsel
As
self.”
example
“concealing or
(noting
is a classic
that evidence of
as-
“[concealment
”
See, e.g.,
‘avoidance-of-apprehension.’
sisting
escape”
relevant
another
Gibson,
496, 497
State v.
“aiding
abetting”
prove
cases to
(Minn.1991) (citing line of “avoidanee-of crime
committed and that a defendant
we have held
cases” where
apprehension
it).
jury
If the
knowingly participated
of the same
part
crimes
two
could
concealment of Hold-
consider
defendant,
“if
sub-
conduct
course of
guilty
finding
er’s remains
committed
stantially contemporaneously
murder, it
incon-
abetting
seems
appre-
to avoid
offense
order
second
may
to conclude that the trial
gruous
offense”).
In this
for the first
hension
it in
for that of-
sentencing
not consider
substantially
case,
the concealment
fense.
Al-
with the murder.
contemporaneous
day-and-a-half
unique perspec-
interval
A trial court
with a
there
“sits
though
case,
and the conceal-
stages
including
death
on all
of a
sen-
between Holder’s
tive
remains,
medical examiner
ment of his
tencing”
position
and “is in the best
Hold-
dismemberment of
testified
weigh
conduct and
the offender’s
evaluate
have involved
er’s
would
substantial
Hough,
sentencing options.” State
effort,
dis-
and the
amount of time
case,
In this
*15
by an
followed
aborted
memberment
Leja played
trial
court concluded that
park
remains at a
to leave the
attempt
major
by luring
in the
role
crime
Holder
addition,
have
In
claims to
St. Paul.
“actively
his
and
participating]
death
post-homicidal
an
slum-
been in
extended
Wisconsin,
of his
taking
disposing
him to
had
following
and still
ber
Holder’s death
car,
torso,
leaving
his
his
burying
[and]
finally
up.
on
she
woke
her when
blood
park
remains at a
where
other
roadside
observed,
As
“from
defense counsel
they can
never
found.”
end,”
“little
beginning to the
there was
Leja’s
Considering
role in this heinous
interruption.”
crime, I
that the trial
did
conclude
summary,
concealment
imposing
clearly
abuse its discretion
conviction of
body was relevant
1.4 times
upward departure
a limited
appro
was an
felony murder and therefore
recogniz
After
presumptive
sentence.
have
priate sentencing consideration. We
crime” in
ing
“gruesome
that this was a
presence,
that “a defendant’s
concluded
cruelty”
volving
“particular
before and
companionship,
conduct
af
“reprehensible,” it is incon
actions were
is committed
relevant
ter an offense
find
majority
ceivable that
could
may
jury
which the
circumstances from
threshold of
conduct fails to reach the
abet
criminal intent” for
infer
compelling
circumstances
substantial
Gates, 615
ting
crime.
v.
(Minn.2000)
added);
justify
needed
(emphasis
now,
I
If
would
departure.
when?
&
S.
Henry
W. McCarr
Jack
see also
imposed.3
affirm the sentence
Nordby,
Practice - Criminal
Minnesota
issue,
deciding I further
waived. Without
by majority,
parties did not
noted
As
Jersey,
Apprendi v. New
530 U.S.
jury
raise
convicted
note that because the
(2000)
I in the dissent of Chief Justice
Blatz.
MEYER, (dissenting). Justice join of Chief the dissent Justice
Blatz. MIKLAS,
Patricia E. as trustee for the
Next-of-Kin of Kathleen Rose Fields Fields, Joseph Deceased,
and Daniel
Appellant,
Stephen PARROTT, Travis Defendants, al.,
et
Illinois Farmers Insurance
Company, Respondent.
No. C4-02-2021.
Supreme Court Minnesota.
July