*1 Minnesota, Respondent, STATE
Larry PEARSON, Appellant, Pearson,
Larry Demetrius Appellant,
petitioner, Minnesota, Respondent.
State of A07-1605,
Nos. A08-1821. of Minnesota.
Supreme Court
Nov. 2009. *3 General, Swanson, Attorney following by St. facts are disputed Lori Gaertner, Paul, MN; Ramsey 22, 2006, party. April and Susan either On Merriman, R. Attorney, Ragatz, Thomas As- County encountered Willie Corodari’s Paul, County Attorney, brother, Ramsey station, St. gas sistant at a St. Paul and the MN, respondent. for two of them a potential drug discussed apart- sale. Pearson then drove to his Jacks, Assistant Sharon E. State Public ment, followed Willie and in a Corodarl Defender, Paul, MN, appellant. St. briefly Chevrolet Astro van. Pearson while went into his apartment, the Merri- OPINION parking mans remained lot behind *4 MEYER, Justice. building. reemerged, When Pearson 23, 2007, May Ramsey County jury a On and Willie had conversation that esca- Larry appellant found Demetrius Pearson time, lated into an altercation. At the guilty of mur- first-degree premeditated sitting During in the van. Corodarl der, violation of Minn.Stat. altercation, away Willie ran from the 609.185(a)(1) (2008), § second-degree in- van, and at point, some Pearson shot Coro- murder, tentional in violation of Minn.Stat. shooting, darl three After the times. Wil- 1(1) 609.19, (2008), § subd. and unlaw- away lie returned the van and drove firearm, ful possession of a in violation of help find for Corodarl. Pearson to a went 624.713, (2008), § Minn.Stat. subd. 1 for apartment cousin’s to remove blood and his involvement in the death of Corodarl by gunpowder washing residue his hands Merriman. The found Pearson not bleach. with Pearson then went to his guilty attempted murder for the shoot- girlfriend’s apartment, where he hid until ing of Willie Merriman.1 The trial court morning. he was arrested the next The first-degree convicted Pearson of murder police gun found a and two unused bullets prison and sentenced him to life in without apartment. hidden at that Bullet frag- possibility of release. The court con- also body ments recovered from Corodarl’s possession victed Pearson for the offense gun apartment. matched the found and sentenced him for that offense to a An assistant medical examiner testified concurrent 60-month sentence. Pearson by that Corodarl’s death was caused multi- petition filed a direct well appeal as as wounds, ple gunshot and that at least two relief, postconviction which was denied. wounds, gunshot of the one to the skull appeal Pearson’s direct was consolidated lungs, and one to the have been would with appeal his from the denial of his fatal. police right also found that the postconviction petition. appeal, In his passenger front door window of the Merri- (1) following Pearson raises the issues: broken, pieces mans’ van was by whether the trial admitting court erred window were found inside the car. Blood as rebuttal a videotaped evidence state- splatter throughout was found the back officer; police ment made Pearson to a half of the van. (2) whether the State committed miscon- (3) duct; and whether Pearson admits that he shot and killed Pearson was denied 22, 2006, April his to effective assistance of counsel. Corodarl Merriman but We affirm. At claims he did so self-defense. Merriman, 1. Pearson was indicted on two counts of mur- Willie and one of unlawful count Merriman, der for the death of Corodarl one possession aof firearm. attempted count of murder for the trial, defense, Pearson and Merriman were Willie Willie fled out driver’s front only eyewitnesses According Pearson, who testified door. he tried to shooting, they presented differ- very follow out Willie the driver’s side van, ent took place. versions of what but grabbed Corodarl arm pre- venting escape. Pearson then fired According testimony, trial Willie’s two more shots at making Corodarl before marijuana tried sell to Corodarl out of the van. Pearson stated that he Willie, but when Willie did not have left the area his vehicle after a brief enough money, they agreed that Mer- struggle Willie, with who had returned to rimans would follow Pearson back to his the van. apartment budding. After Pearson re- emerged from his apartment building, In May Ramsey County jury out Pearson told Willie of the van. guilty found Pearson of both murder Pearson asked Willie Corodarl was with counts for the death Corodarl and the police. replied Willie that Coro- When unlawful possession of a firearm count. marijua- darl was not and asked see the The jury found Pearson not guilty of at- na, gun out pulled and shot at tempting to murder Willie. Pearson ap- *5 missed, Willie’s head. The shot and Willie pealed judgment for, the but moved van, ran from leaving the Corodarl behind. granted, was a stay postconvic- to institute Willie testified he watched Pearson proceedings. tion his postconviction pe- begin approach tition, the van and as Pearson asserted he was denied back Corodarl scrambled to the of the van. his Sixth Amendment to effective then opened passenger Pearson the front assistance After hearing, of counsel. the van, seat, door of the knelt over the postconviction court peti- denied Pearson’s again. shot Willie ran back to the van and tion in September and Pearson ap- wrestled with for the gun, Pearson but one pealed from that denial. We consolidated of Pearson’s friends came from behind and appeals. both choking started Willie. After the confron-
tation, foot, Pearson and friend his fled on I. away while Willie drove from the lot to first argu We address Pearson’s help. seek ment that the trial court erred when it According admitted, evidence, testimony, to Pearson’s trial as rebuttal a video station, at gas taped while the approached Willie statement made Pearson to a him party. They days about a also police talked officer. Two the after shoot about, but did not complete, ing, voluntarily sale of crack requested Pearson station, cocaine. he gas When left the speak Aguirre, the brother of time, Pearson did not realize that the Merri- his gen best friend. At the Pearson following erally mans were him back to the in shooting, denied involvement apartment. briefly though went inside acknowledged may he that he have out, apartment, his he gun when came handled the shooting. used surprised was that the Aguirre Merrimans were in Pearson told Officer that “I’m the parking get tryin’ lot. you told to holler at to see goin’ what was passenger trial, the front testimony seat the van. on.” In his at Corodarl sat in the back a gun seat with Aguirre admitted that he lied Officer him, at him, “you aimed as throughout Willie said to their conversation and that he know what it is.” As Pearson reached for information about the gun his own and shot at Corodarl in self- case him Aguirre. from Officer credibility jury the vid- still had to determine sought offer the State When rebuttal court explanation. this conversation as of Pearson’s trial eotape of self-defense, Pearson videotape “the the best Pearson’s claim reasoned that state- videotaped that the objected arguing way for to come and fairest the evidence improper rebuttal evidence. The in; ment was opportunity ... gives it the defense’s motion to trial court denied really rather than happened view what statement and ad- videotaped exclude has some artificial cross-examination which “any implication that it to rebut mitted already agree with the tri- occurred.” We concerning intent made [Pearson] best videotape al court that the was the The trial of the statement. the time” to use evidence available for videotaped state- noted also ex- evaluating credibility of Pearson’s credibility. to Pearson’s ment was relevant why he lied to Officer planation of and, turn, trial credibility of his Pearson renews appeal, On that he Corodarl in self- testimony shot videotaped statement argument We, therefore, defense. conclude evidence. Under rebuttal improper trial court did abuse its broad discre- 26.03, 11(g), P. subd. Minn. R.Crim. videotaped when it state- tion admitted evidence to ex may offer rebuttal ment into evidence.2 contradict, or refute the defendant’s plain, Gore, evidence. argument con Pearson’s second “what The decision of videotape cerning the is that should rests proper constitutes rebuttal evidence R. under Minn. Evid. been excluded wholly in the discretion of trial almost “is probative because its value substantial *6 Sullivan, 200, v. 502 N.W.2d court.” State by danger unfair ly outweighed the of (Minn.1993). only will reverse a 203 We argues that the prejudice.” again Pearson ev regarding rebuttal trial court’s decision it videotape probative no value has a of showing a clear abuse upon idence merely cumulative. The State contends Gutierrez, State v. 667 N.W.2d discretion. argument was raised that Rule 403 never (Minn.2003). 426, 435 un A trial court’s determinations below. the video- first contends that Pearson 403 are reviewed for an abuse der Rule any not rebut of his taped statement did discretion, trial only we will reverse merely cumulative be- testimony and was preju actual court’s decision there was already at cause Pearson had admitted Schulz, to 691 dice the defendant. State videotaped trial he had lied that (Minn.2005). 474, In order Aguirre. In his testi- statement Officer the evidence must prejudice, cause unfair mony, majority that the Pearson conceded by illegitimate means. Id. persuade during this conversation of what he said 478. “junk” and Aguirre was as- above, videotape high- was As noted testimony that his trial was the serted jury ly probative in it allowed the that, in explained talking truth. Pearson Pear- regarding draw its own inferences Aguirre, he was to find with Office why lied to as to explanation son’s police against had out what evidence and, turn, credibility Aguirre Officer jury him. But while the was aware that Pearson of his claim of self-defense. testimony inconsistent Pearson’s trial claims, however, depict- videotape that the Aguirre, to Officer with his statement videotape was im- argument videotape 2. was admissible as son’s Because the evidence, proper character evidence. we need not address Pear- rebuttal “vulgar jailbird” judicial as a and therefore Id. proceedings. him Because ed unfairly prejudicial. prove We conclude needs to all parts plain error that, test, may although jury analyze have viewed we need not each separate Everson, negative light part individually. because of his See 349; Goelz, on the videotape, and demeanor N.W.2d at language 743 N.W.2d potential prejudice for unfair from the outweigh the videotape videotape’s did not Juarez, Relying on State v. result, the trial probative value. As a (Minn.1997), 290-91 Pearson claims did not when it abuse its discretion “allowing to hear jury [his] state- videotape introduced into allowed be ment attorney about his desire for an vio- evidence. lated well-settled that the state law cannot use a defendant’s exercise of his argues first time agree. counsel We him.” appeal that the trial court committed sponte error plain redacting sua Juarez, the defendant’s interrogation portions videotaped state certain police with was admitted into evidence and Specifically, ment. Pearson contends that statement, gonna included his “I’m have to trial court redacted should have Pear lawyer next.” Id. at 290. We held obtaining counsel, son’s references to was error for the in- be girlfriend’s possible to his abor reference request formed of Juarez’s for counsel be- tion, possible and references to his bail and cause the may have treated the re- sentence. quest badge guilt. as a Id. at 291. Pearson’s statement contained several
Generally, a defendant when fails obtaining more an attorney references to court, argument raise an in the trial than one reference Juarez. During plain error doctrine our controls review. Blom, Aguirre, Pearson’s interview with Officer See (Minn.2004) Pearson’s need for a was men- although (explaining started, six tioned times. As the interview argued defendant at trial his state up the brought under Minn. R. Officer fact that ment inadmissible *7 lawyer Pearson a Evid. doctrine con “had asked for before.” plain error give story, trolled the court’s review of the defen When told to his side said, argument, for the to figure dant’s raised first time Pearson “I need out [who] appeal, my lawyer going that his was statement inadmis is. was to find a [She] said, because it involuntary). sible was for me.” Pearson later “It plain encourages figure you error doctrine all I defendants will out. I told have a object [good] attorney by morning.” while in the trial court so that in the Pear- any errors can be before their then asked if could make a call corrected son to a “pm Maurstad, impact “girl”. full is her to hurry up, realized. State tellin’ (Minn.2007). hurry up attorney 733 N.W.2d To es and send that and send (After error, plain appellant attorney up tablish an must here to see me.” (1) (2) error; call request show: there was which this to make a about an attor- (3) plain; ney, ap was which affected the Pearson made at least six more refer- call.) Griller, substantial pellant’s rights. getting phone ences to Aguirre exactly If these also refused to tell Officer met, prongs day three we then of the happened assess what so my lawyer we whether should address error to that “when it comes time here,” integrity story already ensure fairness and the would not have be is committed if a jury no crime Finally, when Officer told. been killing justifiable the seriousness because of self-de- impart said, “That, Pearson, Pearson had the burden of charges to fense and I tryin’ to see. should I’m beyond that’s what a reasonable doubt that proving attorney like decent probably not act in self-defense. Be- Pearson did attorney.” good jury guilty cause the found murder, it first-degree second-degree numerous ref on Pearson’s Based rejected Pearson’s claim that had to have attorney, an getting erences Thus, in self-defense. there is no he acted somehow that he was inferred may have likelihood that the trial court’s reasonable Thus, trial court guilt. concealing Pearson’s refer- erroneous admission of without admitting the statement erred in attorney signifi- an had a getting ences to Pearson’s statements redacting first verdict, jury’s and there- cant effect on the However, our anal attorney. an obtaining not affect Pearson’s fore the error did next here. We must not end ysis does rights. substantial admis the trial court’s consider whether getting references to Pearson’s sion of for the reference to the As Pearson’s “substantial attorney affected girlfriend might possibility Pearson’s rights.” and the discus pregnancy terminate her affects defendant’s An error likely Pearson’s bail and sen sion about prejudi if the error was rights substantial tence, conclude that if there were er we of the case. the outcome cial and affected plain, that were the evidence outlined rors An Griller, at 741. error not demonstrates that the errors did above likeli is a “reasonable if there prejudicial rights. It is affect Pearson’s substantial significant “had a the error hood” unlikely that references to Pear highly Id. at 744 jury’s verdict. effect” on the terminating pregnancy her girlfriend son’s omitted). (internal marks quotation of bail and sentence possibility and to the self-defense, any, role in the significant, trial, played claiming At claim. jury’s rejection of his self-defense shot and killed Corodarl. conceded that he Thus, for the primary issue sum, references to obtain- had acted self-defense. whether Pearson attorney, girl- to his ing an his reference evidentiary inconsis- several There were abortion, and references possible friend’s indi- theory. The record tencies with that and sentence did possible to his bail steps taking admitted that Pearson cates rights Pearson’s substantial affect shooting. in the involvement to conceal his they likelihood that is no reasonable there *8 scene, fleeing the steps Those included jury’s rejec- significant had a effect on to remove hands with bleach washing his claim. tion of Pearson’s self-defense residue, hiding from gunpowder blood and Therefore, we hold that the trial court did gun killing used police, hiding plain error when failed not commit Corodarl, from trying to flush bullets from redact these references sponte sua lied the toilet. Pearson also gun down videotaped statement. Pearson’s to Officer during his statement in the murder. his involvement II. evidence, Further, including physical claim Pearson’s next involves wounds, is hard of Corodarl’s the locations misconduct, not prosecutorial of allegations Pearson’s version to reconcile with at trial. Pearson claims objected to Finally, the trial court instructed events. by, among the State committed misconduct contends that the State’s position earlier things, implying other of was an intentional misrepresentation.3 robbery from a Corodarl stemmed In closing argument, disparaging theory of self-defense. We may present all legitimate arguments on unobjected-to prosecutori- review claims the evidence and all proper inferences that plain al misconduct for error under the can be drawn from that evidence. State v. Griller framework listed above. State v. (Minn. Wahlberg, 408, 296 N.W.2d Ramey, 721 1980). But a lawyer may speculate If the defendant demonstrates that there without a factual basis. See State v. plain, was error which was the burden (Minn. Thompson, shifts to the State to demonstrate “that its 1998). Although Willie money did have on prejudice misconduct did not the defen- him, suggestion the State’s that Pearson rights.” dant’s substantial Id. at 300. The was to rob the Merrimans ques State must show that there is no reason- tionable at best. But the State’s mention able likelihood that absence of the miscon- robbery merely was in passing—the significant duct would have had a effect on State’s robbery reference to as a motive verdict. Id. at 302. previous Pearson’s robbery convictions only was page one out of 22 pages of A. argument. Even if we assume that Pearson first claims that the State robbery error, mention of was we are sat improperly suggested during closing argu isfied on the presented record that there is ment that shooting may have occurred no reasonable likelihood that the error as a result of attempting to rob occurred, had not jury’s verdict would During the Merrimans. closing argu its have been different. Pearson was free to ment, the State said that money Willie had argue a different set of reason him, on which “provides a motive for a able inferences pre based the evidence robbery.” Pearson contends that this allu sented, and his decision not to address the robbery sion to supported by was not suggestion State’s of robbery implies that record because when Willie was asked if prejudicial. the comments were not See jack is, Pearson “was going you,” Whittaker, him, “No, rob responded he, Willie (Minn.1997) (“The defendant’s failure to money didn’t ask for nothing. or He object implies that the comments [about pulled gun out a shooting.” and started the defendant’s choice to remain silent] Pearson further claims that the State’s prejudicial.”). were not allusion robbery was in direct contrast with the State’s position earlier at trial Pearson further claims that the State when it informed the court that there improperly previous robbery used his con- allegation “no that this a robbery or victions to show propensity Pearson’s any property going to be taken commit Although robberies. the State from Willie Merriman or Corodarl Merri- mentioned robbery convictions man at the time of the offense.” immediately and then robbery alluded to *9 position 3. The State took the earlier in an Pearson does not claim the convictions were effort to convince the trial court that Pear- improperly Nothing admitted. in this record robbery son’s convictions should be admitted supports allegation Pearson's that the State under Minn. R. Evid. 609 because Pearson’s intentionally misrepresented position its be- convictions were not similar to the current fore the trial court. crime. The convictions were admitted. . jurors speculate to invite to as moti- shooting, the the record as motive for try vation for a to the case a attempt the to defendant an State not reflect does specific specifically said that way. We as character evidence. As two connect the a line prosecutors may not of de- belittle above, robbery mention of stated “suggest in fense the abstract or that the in fleeting reference the State’s merely a it because that was the addition, defendant raised we assume closing argument. ” Id. only ‘might that work.’ defense the trial court’s instruc- jurors follow that argument Pearson claims that State’s that held such instruc- tions, and we in theory here of self-defense belittled the arguments by improper mitigate tions that replies The it did Washington, abstract. State State. State a theory as in case, disparage not self-defense In this the trial 35, 40 abstract; instead, that, it claimed in its con- instructed the properly context, that arguing Pear- the State only convictions for their Pearson’s sider testimony to son tailored his self-defense testimo- weight Pearson’s effect on record, fit the On this Pear- known facts. also instructed the ny. trial court speak specifically requested son with not evi- arguments counsels’ jury that information get Officer closing argu- Viewing the State’s dence. case, perhaps, the State’s and tailor his given the evidence ment as whole against him. Pearson, defense the evidence we conclude that against any refer- State has demonstrated if the not decide here State’s We need robbery convictions did to Pearson’s ences because, closing misconduct argument was rights or con- his substantial prejudice event, any prejudice it did not trial. requiring a new stitute misconduct rights. Viewing closing substantial ar- whole, gument complained-of por- as B. just longer tion is lines in a much three Pearson next claims attack self-defense claim. on Pearson’s theo disparaged defense’s improperly instance, says For also the State its ry by stating light that “in of self-defense closing actions did not re- that Pearson’s evidence, only that was the de all the flect the of someone who had actions explain what he did.” The fense left to above, acted As stated self-defense. argu this along line of State continued given allegedly limited nature ment: strength improper argument Pearson, say couldn’t someone
So the defendant evidence we conclude that it, any that wouldn’t work. likelihood else did there no reasonable That say significant He can’t it was accident.... misconduct effect on the had to explain what only leaves self-defense verdict. Why say would he
happened.... out the side]? tried to driver’s
[he C. Well, explain two more shots. gotta he’s other Pearson makes a number of claims just get gotta out. He’s ex- He can’t misconduct, arguing prosecutorial that it you saving how he was his own plain to to tell the court improper for the State more by shooting life the victim two play that it had no intention video- times. tape of Pearson’s statement Officer Williams, improperly In Aguirre, two witnesses record, (Minn.1994), Pearson’s criminal improp- we held that it is referenced State, argument, closing arguments er during closing for the State *10 veracity gave “high degree of testi- court also of vouched for the Willie’s defer- these ence” mony. Because we satisfied that conduct of Pearson’s counsel incidents did not affect Pearson’s substan- and concluded that “no there was basis for is not rights, tial we hold Pearson of finding ineffective assistance of coun- any entitled to on these respect relief claims. sel.” videotape, With hav- already
ing
concluded that
its admission
III.
did not affect
rights,
Pearson’s substantial
we also conclude that
there
no reason-
Finally, Pearson raises several
that,
able
for
probability
but
Pearson’s
claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
errors,
alleged
counsel’s
the outcome of
These
raised in
claims were
Pearson’s
proceedings
been
would have
different.
postconviction proceedings. To establish
counsel,
of
Pearson
ineffective assistance
alleges
Pearson also
that his
prove
representa
must
that his “counsel’s
trial counsel should have cross-examined
objective
tion fell below an
of
standard
prior
about Corodarl’s
bad
Willie
acts as a
reasonableness,
and that a reasonable
juvenile after Willie
testified
Corodarl
probability
exists
outcome [of
a peacemaker.
Decisions about evi
but
proceeding] would
been different
objections
dence and
are matters of trial
Lahue,
for
errors.” State v.
counsel’s
State,
strategy. See Leake v.
(Minn.1998).
strong
N.W.2d
A
(Minn.2007).
give particu
542-43
We
presumption
finding
favor of
exists
lar
to and
second-guess
deference
will not
reasonable,
representation
counsel’s
regarding
decisions
counsel
trial
particular
mat
given
deference is
Lahue,
536;
Id. at
strategy.
strategy,
ters
wit
including
of trial
which
Because
789.
we conclude that
nesses to call and what
information
claimed ineffective assistance here involves
present to
Id. at
More
jury.
789-90.
strategy,
trial
we hold that Pearson’s inef
over,
probability
“a
requires
reasonable
fective
claim
assistance
counsel
neces
probability sufficient to
confi
undermine
sarily fails.
dence
the outcome.” Strickland v.
Affirmed.
668, 694,
Washington, 466 U.S.
104 S.Ct.
(1984).
2052, 80
L.Ed.2d
We review
CONCURRENCE
postconviction
de novo the
court’s denials
PAGE,
(concurring).
Justice
claims
of Pearson’s
as
ineffective
ques
sistance of counsel claims are mixed
I
Although would affirm Pearson’s con-
State,
Opsahl
tions of law and fact.
677 victions,
separately
I write
because the
holding
our
misconstrues
Juarez,
(Minn.1997),
166 however, if an apply, the ror doctrine does not may have handled that he knowledged parts plain meets all four of the error shooting. Pearson told in the used gun plain Id. at 349. To establish error test.” tryin’ to “I’m that Aguirre Officer (1) error, appellant an must show: on.” In goin’ what was you at to see holler (2) error; plain; there was which trial, Pearson admitted testimony at his (3) appellant’s substan- which affected throughout that he lied to Officer Griller, v. rights. tial State and that he their conversation (Minn.1998). 736, If these three against about the case get information (4) met, we then assess wheth- prongs Aguirre. The State him from Officer error to ensure er we should address the recording of videotape sought to offer integrity judicial of the fairness and the as rebuttal to Pearson’s this conversation Because Pearson needs proceedings. Id. The trial de- claim of self-defense. test, plain all of the error prove parts to exclude the vid- nied Pearson’s motion analyze separate part each we need not “any impli- it to rebut eotape and admitted Everson, individually. at See N.W.2d concerning his made cation that [Pearson] Goelz, 249, 349; time” of the statement. intent at the (Minn.2007). Here, of the the admission videotape noted trial court also videotape about portions unredacted credibility. Af- to Pearson’s was relevant not complains now does which Pearson agreed parts on three parties ter the test, error and under the satisfy plain video, played it was from the redact doctrine, should be invited error jury. ap- raising from this issue on foreclosed court erred argues that the trial court, However, on peal. relying redacting certain other sponte not sua Juarez, with Pearson’s conten- agrees videotaped conversation portions of the “allowing to hear [his] tion did not ob- Aguirre. Pearson attorney for an about his desire statement of these references. ject to the admission law that the state can- violated well-settled fact, indicates that counsel In the record right not use a defendant’s exercise of worked to- and for Pearson for the State at him.” 572 N.W.2d to counsel to exclude videotape and gether to edit the 290-91. agreed should parties materials both is mis- The court’s reliance on Juarez re- Although parties not be included. Juarez, ar- the defendant was placed. they videotape, parts three dacted interrogated suspicion on rested any of references did not redact at sexually assaulting children. Id. 286. Thus, complains. now which Pearson trial, portion of Juarez’s During the objection by Pearson to only there no played that was for the taped interrogation jury, videotape being shown to statement, gonna “I’m jury included the the contents actually consented to lawyer next.” Id. at have to videotape as shown. that the issue in Juarez 292. We held by Pearson falls un The error claimed the defendant invoked was not whether doctrine, pre counsel, the invited error which der rather whether but asserting appeal an jury hearing vents Pearson from this statement reasonable complicit during likely that Juarez was re- error that he was would conclude Everson, attorney. Id. 291.1 We questing trial. See State for the say that it was error “The invited er- went on 348-49 legal effect of appeals’ '‘[i]t is not the favorably the court of conclusion 1. We cited to *12 a request lawyer reasonably for tioned could lead a to be informed of Juarez’s jury jury could treat to infer that jury because the defendant was invok- counsel Id. at 291. badge guilt. as a of request ing right his to and the purpose counsel on the holding based this United We the invocation was to end the interrogation ruling that a de- Supreme Court’s States However, and “conceal his guilt.” choice to exercise his constitu- fendant’s support facts of Pearson do not such an may to not be used right counsel tional Here, inference. voluntarily (citing him at trial. Miranda Id. spoke a happened to friend to also who be Arizona, 37, n. v. 384 U.S. 468 86 police sought officer gain a to informa- (1966)). 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d Simi- S.Ct. 694 tion from the No interrogation officer. Hall, in that larly, we concluded place. conversation, took During allowing jury portion to the final hear statements, following Pearson made the “I statement, said, which of the defendant’s figure my to ... lawyer need out who is. gonna give what’s the man? You “So deal going lawyer find a for [She] a or error me what?” was because her me.... And I called and told her jury likely left the infer that going what’s on.” Pearson also asked Offi- concealing guilt. his defendant Aguirre girl. call “that cer he could I’m 837, 841-42 N.W.2d hurry up, hurry tellin’ her to up and however, never, every held that We attorney up ... here to see me.” send by a fleeting suspect reference made context, fleeting Viewed these refer- “counsel,” “attorney” or “lawyer,” words “lawyer” to the words and “attor- ences during an constitutes a re- interrogation ney” arguably do not even constitute re- for have we ever quest counsel. Nor held likely for are not quests counsel and to be jury it is error a to hear such by any juror requests as for coun- viewed Hale, In references. State or conceal guilt. sel as effort to Fur- (Minn.1990), that a we held sus- ther, conversation fleeting, pect’s off-hand comment his lawyer. a continued after the references to attorney future need for an was “not even to a lawyer Because the were in references right an invocation his arguably [] passing interrogation, and did not end statement, Thus, if counsel.” viewed likely to the references were not be viewed made, context which it is does not On the badge guilt. pre- as record suggest that the defendant wants arguably sented, I would conclude until counsel interrogation to terminate statements, when taken in con- questioning further is allowed. present, text, jury likely would not lead believe (Minn. Risk, invoking right his that Pearson was 1999). badge of guilt, or be seen as counsel substantially The facts in sponte sua redact trial court’s failure to from Juarez and different the facts error, much less an the references was not Hall, the last state- Hall. Juarez and basis, On that plain. error juries from taped ments the heard fails. claim interrogations perceived be arguably could as an of the defen- invocation right to counsel. The cessation of dant’s
interrogation after the defendant men- Juarez, issue, ambiguous did invoke counsel.”
Juarez’s statement that is at jury. prejudicial (internal omitted). it is its effect on the rather citations N.W.2d at 291 hear, all the Juarez From was allowed