*1 902 vehicle to believe that cause
рrobable
Minnesota,
and that
Respondent,
substances
contained controlled
STATE of
search was valid
warrantless
therefore a
exception. State
under the motor-vehicle
LINDER,
Christopher
Appellant.
Jessie
918
Armstrong,
No. 49946.
Johnson,
(1973). Arkansas v.
U.S.
(1979)
61 L.Ed.2d
S.Ct.
— which
Chadwick, 433
applied
U.S.
United States
(1977), to
warrantless searches limits the Chadwick explicitly automobiles — luggage found within
rule items such as and excludes from rule automobile inte of the vehicle itself or “some
searches automobile,” as a
gral part at
glove or trunk. 422 U.S. compartment at 2593. Under Chambers S.Ct.
Maroney, U.S. deputy if the could scene glove compartment
search the warrant, then he obtaining
without first do so later at
constitutionally could warrant. obtaining
station without first
We whether search was need not decide cause to theory probable open-bottle viola
search for evidence objective
tion probable since there was for controlled substances.
cause search States,
Scott v. United
S.Ct. 56 L.Ed.2d remanded.
Reversed and attorneys is awarded fees
Defendant pursuant to Minn.R. amount $400 2(8).
Crim.P. *2 Defender, Mark An- Jones, Public Paul
C. Dеfender, Minneapolis, derson, Public Asst. appellant. for Paul, Gen., Atty. St. Spannaus, Warren Johnson, Atty., Robert Sta- County Robert Anoka, respon- nich, County Atty., Asst. dent. J., SHERAN, and OTIS C. before
Heard JJ., PETERSON, and considered en banc. the court decided PETERSON, Justice. trial,
In a bifurcated He murder. first-degree guilty found of conviction judgment appeals from to waive motion (1) his contending that (2) there granted, have been trial should support evidence was insufficient Washington of venue from Anoka to Coun guilty first-de- that he jury’s finding murder, mandated the evidence where trial commenced on November gree ty, reason of mental guilty by of not a verdict In the first charged illness. We affirm. jury found the elements the second proved; had been offense victim, 68-year-old 15,1979, July guilty, found defendant re stage, Anoka, widow, home in in her beaten *3 Upon jecting plea his of mental illness. defendant, Minnesota, escapee an by motion for a new trial denial of defendant’s days and died 2 Hospital, the Anoka State acquittal notwithstanding judgment or Defendant, history had a later. who verdict, brought appeal. defendant this the behavior dat- mental illness and antisocial childhood, commit- hаd been ing back to his raised is whether the 1. The first issue Hospital on April the ted to Anoka State refusing in discretion trial abused its court paranoid schizo- being diagnosed after jury trial. to allow defendant to waive phrenic. 26.01, 1(2), provides: Minn.R.Crim. P. subd. (2) by Jury. Waiver of Trial 14, 1976, defend- evening July the defendant, a staff hospital waited in the until (a) The Generally. Waiver unattended; keys his waive may technician left court approval of the with escaped from the keys personally fendant took the and he does so provided trial between hospital open into an field that lies in upon the record writing orally in or neighbor- court, by and the residential hospital advised open being after He passed in which the victim lived. by jury hood and right of his to trial court victim’s in a shed behind the to con- having opportunity after had an night home, following morning he broke and the with counsel. sult food, clothing, and into the home to find Publicity. (b) Prejudicial Waiver When money escape for his and there subdued permitted shall be The defendant about the by hitting repeatedly victim her is deter- waive trial whenever lost length pipe head with a until she been know- (a) the waiver hаs mined consciousness. made, (b) and there ingly voluntarily and that, result of is reason to believe as the neighbor Police arrived after a alerted prejudi- potentially the dissemination in the home. presence them to defendant’s material, required to cial the waiver is bedroom They lying found the victim in the trial. assure the likelihood of a fair in pool of blood and defendant drinking heavily. kitchen Defendant was acknowledges While defendant scene, the victim was arrested and right to waive he does not have an absolute July died on hospital taken to a where she Hoskins, trial, 292 Minn. regaining never consciousness. (1972); Gaulke v. death, Following her defendant charged first-degree murder. with (a) (1971), subsection he contends that accept court tо requires in of the rule the trial response charge, In countervailing rea strong waiver terposed pleas guilty alternative of not unless However, in Hoskins sons exist for refusal. guilty by not reason of mental illness and Kilburn, 304 pursuant elected to bifurcate his trial and Gaulke and in State 217, 224-25, 6(2)(1)1 De Minn. Minn.R.Crim. P. a defendant question
fendant also moved to waive
trial. we held the
whether
the sound
The
trial
is left to
trial court denied this motion but
burden is
The
granted
change
an alternative motion for a
discretion of the trial court.
stages.
stage
plea
trial con-
1. A bifurcated
in
in the
of the
trial is held
two
the
siders the defendant’s
reason
er defendant should be excused
liability
second
guilty
stage,
the
ant’s
the
proved.
of not
first
considers the defend-
plea
guilty
wheth-
of mental illness and determines
and determines whether
charged
from criminal
elements of the offense
have been
guilty,
If
under Minn.Stat. 611.026
the defendant is found
then
defendant is
2. The next issue raised
that refusal
to show
upon defendant
sufficient evidence of
as to constitute whether there was
so unreasonable
waiver was
stage
one of the
presented
premeditation
abuse of discretiоn.
the conviction of first-de-
trial to warrant
refuse
its decision
explaining
gree murder.
case ex
waiver,
court in this
(1980)
first-
defines
Minn.Stat. §
for defendant’s
legitimate
concern
pressed
as follows: “Whoever does
degree murder
judge in
a fair trial. Each
right
of murder
following
guilty
either of the
involved in
district had been
sentenced to
the first
and shall be
respect
with
way, particularly
in some
case
the death
condition,
imprisonment for life:
Causes
reports
of defendant’s
premeditation
with
being
of a human
issue in the second
which would be at
of such
effect
the death
with intent
to several
respect
with
* *
person
suppressed.2
had been
confessions that
be inadvisable
court concluded it would
as to
Section 609.18defines
*4
himself, to
including
any
judges,
for,
“consider,
or determine
plan
prepare
or
not
reasoning does
decide the case. This
to its
commit,
prior
to
to
the act referred
reflect an abuse of discretion.
com-
advisory committee
commission.” The
to these sections states:
ment
not
if he is
argues
Defendant
,was
1959,
under sub
revised so
to waiver of
In
619.08
entitled
Minn.St. §
accept
(b) compels
degrеe, with
(a),
section
subsection
murder in the second
a
prejudicial
longer
waiver because of
no
carries
exceptions,
ance of the
certain
In Ano-
With this
surrounding the murder.
publicity
imprisonment.
life
penalty of
ka,
outcry against
public
the case stirred
in terms
consequences
change, substantial
was rekin
hospital.
outcry
That
state
now turn
possible punishment
of
hospital
at the
dled in
with the arrival
“premeditation.”
meaning of the word
widely publi
patient
of another
who
in recommended §
The definition
acquitted by
trial had been
cized
some
distinction
give
undertakes to
this
former
illness of the murder of her
large-
Heretofore it has
substance.
wife.
boyfriend’s
pres-
time
meaning. All the
ly without
deliber-
or
premeditation
needed for
ently
prejudicial public-
Despite
undisputed
form the intent
required
is that
ation
however, we
with the trial court
ity,
agree
to kill.
venue from
change
that because of the
comment, we concluded
examining
a waiver was
In
this
Washington County
Anoka to
Swain,
713 n. 8
269 N.W.2d
likelihood of a
v.
“required
not
to assure the
State
intended
(Minn.1978),
legislature
“the
fair
There was no evidence
trial.”
first and
between
greater
murder affected
distinctions
surrounding the
some
publicity
have hereto
no
than we
County,
Anoka
and there is
second
murder
beyond
areas
denotes a
not or did
“Premeditation
recognized.”
indication that defendant could
fore
in
deliberation
the Wash-
reflection and
pre-existing
not
a fair trial before
receive
to kill.”
intent
than a mere
volving
We hold that
morе
ington County jury.
Lee,
282 N.W.2d
right
a matter of
entitled
v.
ant was not as
State
359, 363,
Keaton, 258 Minn.
1979).
court’s denial
v.
trial and that the
State
Nevertheless,
104 N.W.2d
upheld.
of his motion should be
February
therapy
appearances
troshock
for defendant.
were
Defendant’s initial court
Larson,
year
death of
Judge
and a half after the
who ordered
made before
Carroll
evaluation,
victim, Judgе
psychiatric
found defendant
Dablow
evaluation. After the
suppressed
incompe-
competent
Judge
trial but
to stand
John Dablow found defendant
police
subsequent-
had made to
Defendant was
confessions defendant
tent
ly
stand trial.
mentally
upheld
suppres
dangerous
found to be
ill and
of his arrest. We
the time
Linder,
by Judge Spencer
was committed
Sokolowski
in Statе
sion of the confessions
N.W.2d 734
Security Hospital
(Minn.1978).
at St.
to the Minnesota State
Peter.
Judge
authorized elec-
Sokolowski also
position
and calculated delib
is in the best
planning
“[ejxtensive
A
prosecu
by
need not be shown
eration
sur
evaluate the circumstantial evidence
commit first-
‘plan’
requisite
tion.
Therefore,
jury’s
rounding a murder.
virtually
can be formulated
degree murder
given
verdict must be
due deference. State
Neu
killer.”
instantaneously by a
McCullum,
91. In
289 N.W.2d at
(Minn.1978).
mann,
(Minn.1978),
this
Oevering, 268 N.W.2d
Accord,
Bangert v.
court stated:
(Minn.1979).
verdict, we must
reviewing
When
that evidence
argues
Defendant
light most
the evidence in the
examine
presence of blood
multiple blows and the
favorable to the verdict and assume that
is insufficient to
various rooms of the home
testimоny which
any
disbelieved
Walker,
premeditation.
show
reached.
If on
conflicts with the result it
(1975), cert.
evidence
form the basis of
Accordingly,
verdict.
we
port
jury’s
premeditation.
termination of
As we noted
conviction
to reduce defendant’s
refuse
in
188
Morgan,
murder. This
second-degree
from first- to
(1971):
evi
N.W.2d 917
“The circumstantial
previous deci
holding is consistent with our
in
dence
a criminal case is entitled to as
McCullum,
N.W.2d 89
sions in
State
weight
much
as
other kind of evidence
any
State, 282 N.W.2d
(Minn.1979); Bangert v.
long
proved
so
as the
are
circumstances
Merrill, 274
(Minn.1979);
State
consistent
that
the ac
hypothesis
with the
Walk
(Minn.1978); and State v.
N.W.2d 99
cused is guilty
and inconsistent with
er,
306 Minn.
hypothesis except
guilt.”
rational
that of his
denied,
(citations
cert.
Id. at
3. Defendant did not
at either
psychiat-
Although
Notwithstanding the
the bifurcated trial.
he described his
murder.
thoughts
respect
and conduct with
to the mur-
ric
otherwise relevant
issue
evidence
examining psychiatrists,
they
premeditation,
considera-
der to the
testi-
we have confined our
presented
stage
in
fied
two of the trial. Their testi-
tion to the evidence
mony
accordingly
stage
not available to the
one.
stage
one
at which the
that,
prevent
did not in this instance
him from
contends
Finally,
acquit-
wrong.
his act was
law,
recognizing
he
matter of
should
The stan-
of mental illnеss.
ted
reason
Hoskins,
rejection
upheld
jury’s
we
ill-
of mental
acquittal
dard
despite
of a mental illness defense
fact
611.026
in Minn.Stat.
expressed
ness is
witness
only expert
testified
person
“No
shall
(1980),4
provides:
which
M’Naghten
illness met the
stan-
fendant’s
* * *
ex-
liability
excused from criminal
be
on both
testimony
Here there was
dard.
commit-
at the time of
cept upon proof that
sides,
and am-
with full cross-examination
he was labor-
alleged
criminal act
ting
which the
could decide
ple
upon
basis
reason, from one
ing under such a defect of
to credit. The
testimony
whose
causes,
the nature
as not to know
of these
evidence
rejecting
entirely
act,
wrong.”
or that it was
of his
prevented
defendant’s mental
illness
of his
understanding
him from
the nature
every
“in
provides
Section
wrong.
it was
act and that
is presumed
proceeding,
person
criminal
burden
for his acts and the
responsible
be
Affirmed.
is
him.”
upon
rebutting
presumption
OTIS,
(dissenting).
Justice
upon
The burden is
the defendant
rules of
l(2)(b) of our
Rule
prove
by preponderance
this defense
procedure, provides
criminal
Bott,
,that
the evidence. shall permitted
to waive a
Substаntial
he does so
whenever it
determined
evaluation
jury’s
deference is accorded the
voluntarily, and there is rea-
knowingly and
illness, and we
of the
on mental
testimony
that,
of the dis-
to believe
as a result
son
sole
is the
have often said that
prejudicial materi-
potentially
semination
weight
judge
believability
al,
to assure the
required
the waiver is
Larson,
See,
g.,
e.
tеstimony.
likelihood of a fair trial.
v. Hos
kins,
111, 137-38, 193
upon de-
shifts the burden
majority
is un
(1972). The fact that defendant
court’s refusal to
fendant
to show that the
ill does not alone estab
disputedly mentally
unreasonable, which I
a waiver was
permit
*6
from re
lish his defense. He is excused
fair-
fundamental
find to be at odds with
him
if his illness caused
sponsibility only
duty
the
opinion
it is
my
ness.
act or that it
not to know the nature of his
unless the
waiver
accept
to
the
trial court
Carpenter,
wrong.
discretion,
was
spells
out
court,
exercising
its
the
why
reasons
specificity
some
valid
with
Knox,
314, 323,
trial.
a
justice require
interests
Bott,
State v.
(1976);
310 Minn at
advanced
only justification
Here the