*1 425 ” “ by illegitimate or ‘persuade means’ lead does not contain the order assigning the improper reach a on an verdict judge Hennepin County District Court Townsend, 292, v. 546 basis. State or to Goodloe’s case. Consequently, we (Minn.1996) Cermak, (quoting State v. 296 cannot address the merits this claim. 243, (Minn.1985)). n. 2 365 N.W.2d Affirmed. Accordingly, district court did not err admitting regarding the October incident.
Goodloe claims that he was not afforded judge pur- prompt appearance before 4.02, 5,
suant to Minn. P. R.Crim. subd. or prompt probable cause determination as 4.03,
required by Minn. P. R.Crim. subd. 1. Goodloe asserts that was with- arrested Minnesota, Respondent, STATE of 21, 2004, out warrant on October judge taken before a until Novem- v. 4, 2004. ber VALTIERRA, Appellant. Daniel James validity
The of these clаims cannot ascertained the basis the record No. A05-919. appellant responsi before us. An has the Supreme Minnesota. Court of bility of providing an court with appellate for adequate record review. See State v. July Anderson, (Minn.1984); 351 N.W.2d Indep. also see Grinolds v. Sch. Dist. No. (Minn.1984)
(“Appellate review is limited rec
ord.”). Here, the on appeal record con
tains no indicating documentation when Big
Goodloe for Stop was arrested
shooting, when the district court made the
probable required by cause determination 4.03,
Rule when brought or Goodloe
before the court as Rule required by 4.02.
Thus, we cannot determine whether the
prompt appearance probable cause de requirements
termination of Rules 4.02
and 4.03 were satisfied.
Goodloe’s final claim is that judge probable
who made the cause determina-
tion in properly assigned his case was not pursuant judge case to the retired
assignment process outlined in Minn.Stat. (2004). 2.724,
§ Again, subd. 3 the record
provided our review does not furnish
sufficient to permit documentation resolu-
tion of claim. Specifically, the record *4 Colbert, Legal
Bradford Assistance to Prisoners, Paul, MN, Minnesota St. for appellant. Hatch, General, Attorney Susan Crosby Andria were all during drug
Michael shot Gaertner, Ramsey County Attorney, robbery Mark Costilla’s apartment in Saint County Ramsey Glasgow Asst. At- Paul. Lystig, Nathan was shot in the head and Paul, MN, torney, respondent. St. for chest and died at the scene. Costilla wаs neck,
shot in the head and and died later hospital. But Crosby, shot in her torso and through leg, her left survived. All three were shot Michael Medal- OPINION Mendoza, who accompanied during the MEYER, shooting by Green appellant Justice. James trial, Daniel At Crosby Valtierra. January 2005, Following a trial Valtierra were the witnesses of the appellant Daniel James Valtierra con- who shooting testified. first-degree felony of two counts of victed Crosby and one count that on attempted night murder first- testified boyfriend she degree felony shooting shooting, murder was with her Glas- gow hotel, room an Glasgow Wayne extended-stay deaths of Ron Costil- *5 la, shooting Crosby. along and for the Andria with their friend Costilla. The three appeal, playing games dоminoes, In this direct that were argues Valtierra video and using and jury drugs. Crosby the district court’s instructions were smoked meth- amphetamine marijuana, improper both because the was in- and and also took guilt Glasgow structed that be inferred from some could Valium. and Costilla both used methamphetamine. evening, the fact that Valtierra fled the state and That accomplice telephone because the instruction on Costilla received a call from liability objective buy caller improper looking described an to some methamphet- people visiting standard. Valtierra contends that amine for some who were these improper deprived Crosby Glasgow, instructions him of his out and town. right argues to a fair trial. who in selling Valtierra also were the business of meth- amphetamine, evidentiary agreed the district court made to sell an ounce to $1,600. by allowing Costilla for in told errors the state to introduce Costilla turn expert police testimony “trian- the caller he would sell the regarding ounce $1,800 $1,900. gulation,” by allowing or The transaction was and the state to to at an inquire underlying regarding originally place into the have taken Amoco station, gas Finally, group but the Valtierra’s conviction. was concerned arousing suspicion, they changed about erra that there was insufficient evi- so to the to prove shootings apartment. dence that the of Glas- location Costilla’s Costilla, gow, Crosby reasonably and were a.m., caller, At 1:30 who Cros- a probable foreseeable as consequence Green, later learned was James arrived committing aggravated robbery. While apartment. Costilla’s Green friend- agree we that the court district committed ly, discussing after and and the transaction errors, certain we conclude that these er- minutes, conversing for 15 left to Green deprive rors Valtierra of fair apartment a sample bag with of meth- trial, and that there was sufficient evidence back, amphetamine. came When Green support to Valtierra’s conviction. We Medal-Mendoza and Valtierra were with therefore affirm. According Crosby, group him.
Early in morning January there discussing for about minutes Costilla, transaction, 2004, Wayne Glasgow, Ron and which during time Valtierra couch, “way buy cigarettes. getting close” to to Before silently on the too sat Valtierra, Green, or methamphetamine cigarettes, group and Medal- Glasgow. left, they saying stopped then need- at a Perkins restaurant. Valtierra Mendoza eat, from out of town at people ed meet the did not want to he the other so left give Perkins, them the sample got the Amoco station cigarettes, began two at money. bag get walking apartment, back to his sister’s staying. where had been As he walked Crosby that about 30 minutes testified back, pulled up Green and Medal-Mendoza Green, Valtierra, and Medal-Mendo- after alongside him in a car. Valtierra testified left, za the three men came back into join insisted that Valtierra that Green Medal-Mendoza apartment. Costilla’s walking them the car instead of back in first, brandishing “big, came in silver cold, obliged, and after Valtierra Green gun.” and Valtierra came to- Green explained just going Medal-Mendoza, making a gether after V stop get make a brief 5- or 10-minute Crosby behind him. testified formation methamphetamine. Medal-Mendoza some that she was sure that both Green and guns. also had Medal-Mendoza group arrived at Costilla’s When the gun pointed Glasgow his said: alone, apartment, Green went then you, robbing “I am Medal-Mendoza: apartment all into three went after :|: » n * came car a sample Green back * * me, robbing “You ain’t Glasgow: bag methamphetamine. Valtierra testi- apartment left fied after three you.” “I Medal-Mendoza: will shoot car, and returned Medal-Mendoza “Well, you Glasgow: going are to have *6 asking that the for complained price to shoot me then because sure the methamphetamine too and high sug- was ain’t to me.” going hell rob gested they that to apartment return then in Glasgow Medal-Mendoza shot to attempt negotiate price. to a lower Val- Crosby began head. “in and was shock” * * * that tierra testified he did not think that “No, my baby.” pleading, She and Green Medal-Mendoza intended for next, did not know who was shot but Med- them, go him to he had with but since kept shooting. Crosby felt a аl-Mendoza time, apartment previous come into the in left and gunshot thigh dropped her to join to again. Valtierra decided them gunshots the floor. After several were Green, fired, Valtierra, and Medal-Mendo- Crosby Though testified that Valtierra floor, stayed Crosby za and left. right and Green came in after Medal- of about 5 minutes later one the men came Mendoza, Valtierra testified that Green her his to nudged back and foot make and a got Medal-Mendoza head start and still, sure was She laid and the she dead. the apartment that he entered several sec- grabbed purse again man her and left. did, they just onds after time to hear Crosby Once sure the three men were say someone “shoot me” and see to Medal- gone good, screaming for she began and a pointing gun Glasgow. Mendoza Val- called 911. fire tierra then saw Medal-Mendoza one chest, and Glasgow’s
At trial Valtierra testified in his own shot into another into Though Crosby and his presented defense a different account forehead. claimed that guns, of all had shooting. Valtierra testified that three men Valtierra testified himself, early morning January gun on the that he did not Green have and buy out to that he did not know that Medal-Mendoza Medal-Mendoza went or methamphetamine, carrying gun, and he went with them had been that he was anyone. to shoot Valtierra testified see Valtierra and going Green come out of the Crosby getting lay he remembered shot рickup ditch and down in his bed. The apartment. running and, and Green out pickup driver looked around seeing shots, fired more While Medal-Mendoza people at the of the looking scene accident over, out of the apart- Valtierra followed Green give decided not to group a ride. Instead, ment. flagged he down a passing police car. fleeing apartment, After Costilla’s ran to the home of Green and
erra Green’s police Medal-Mendoza told the officer Alison, rejoined girlfriend, and there name, real his admitted he had been driv- to attempt Green. Valtierra decided to ing, custody taken into driving for for previously purchased plane use a ticket under influence. Green at first Seattle, flight back his home which Green,” “Bobby claimed to be and Valtier- depart was scheduled later morn- ra claimed to be “Jason Andrew Castillo.” ing. problem Valtierra encountered hospital Both were treated at the then airport, with his ticket at the and instead police custody. released from with Medal-Mendoza and decided drive Paul, police Back in talking Saint York, they stay could Green New where Crosby, who recognized had Green family. with Medal-Mendoza’s high pic- school and identified him from a day At about 11:45 a.m. high yearbook. ture in a By school Green, Valtierra, shooting, and Medal- (when January afternoon of the traffic Paul, Saint Mendoza left and drove Medal- Wisconsin), accident оccurred in Paul Saint Chicago, Mendoza’s car as far as where Green, Valtierra, police had connected they stopped a motel. Valtierra testi- shooting, Medal-Mendoza to the and Cros- he night fied he decided picked all three out of photo men “running something should not [he] lineups. learning After that warrants had morning, didn’t do.” In the told been for the issued arrest the three the other two wanted return to Saint men, Wisconsin informed Paul Saint agreed phone call Paul. Green and made officers that had Medal-Mendoza *7 gang to a he knew on the task force person custody, they but that re- already had Paul police. of the Saint leased Green and Valtierra. Valtierra, Green, and Medal-Mеndoza that Valtierra testified he returned to began driving to then back Saint Paul in, turn police St. Paul himself but day on January about 8:45 a.m. arrested instead Valtierra 2-1/2 through shooting. driving after the While his return to Paul. In an hours after Saint car struck the Wisconsin Medal-Mendoza’s immediately an investigator interview with rear corner of minivan. Medal-Mendo- arrest, following his Valtierra indicated up car out spun za’s of control and ended only 12 probably that he had hours of had in the ditch. sleep preceding days over the 15 to 20 ”* * Valtierra, Green, doing he had “s* con- Medal-Mendoza because been stantly.1 investigator left the scene of the accident and went to a told the Valtierra nearby had surprised Crosby road where Medаl-Mendoza that he was that him, identify since flagged pickup down the driver of a truck. been able wearing a at the time of pickup agreed give cap The driver Medal- been baseball ride, surprised Mendoza a but then to the murders. Valtierra also told the inves- drugs prior shooting. 1. At trial Valtierra denied that he had used (1957). that 671-72 But in angry he was Green and N.W.2d two tigator that cases, mur- had talked about the more recent we have that Medal-Mendoza instructed “if people, because someone “jury der to other district courts should avoid instruc- murder, supposed to are never may does advising particular tions fact nobody.” tell facts, if particular inferred other Litzau, proved.” State v. Crosby gave police statements (Minn.2002) (holding 186-87 that the trial shooting that were period following the by giving court erred an instruction that subsequent with her re- largely consistent jury could infer the driver of a at trial. These state- counting of events possessed drug vehicle found in his vehi- jury by related to the ments to were cle, holding that the “cumulative ef- Dunnom, who testified that Sergeant Janet fect” of this error and others merited re- Crosby told her Valtierra Green Olson, see also State v. versal); apartment after came into Costilla’s (Minn.1992) (holding and that all three men N.W.2d 215-16 Medal-Mendoza wielding guns. instructing On cross-examination that the trial court erred in Crosby questions asked related to her jury that possession could be inferred from ability perceive and remember proximity illegal drugs, close and that Litzau, surrounding reversal). shooting. events She tes- this error merited methamphetamine that the she had tified reasoning which echoed the articulated in taken had made her awake more than it Olson, laid out several reasons for disfa- high. her had made voring permissive-inference instructions generally: jury guilty found The Valtierra all counts, charged judge and the convicted Such instructions are in that undesirable him and sentenced counts of first- two inject argument tend to into the degree felony murder and one count of judge’s charge lengthen it unneces- murder, attempted first-degree felony sarily. improper- Such instructions also leading appeal. to this ly jury influence isolat- ing particular by giving facts but also I. particular step logic legal the official argues that Valtierra two of the imprimatur of the state. district court’s instructions were im First, proper. by instructing district court erred * * * ju Permissive permit inferences showing evidence that Valtierra fled myriad ries to avoid assessing the shooting after the could be used to infer *8 specific unique. which make cases possessed guilty a mind.2 Litzau, (second decision, cautiously
In a 1957
this court
Id. at 186 n. 7 quota- citation and Olson, in Unlike the flight erroneous omitted). tion instruction this case was neither the both Litzau and Olson dealt with infer- evidence of guilt Valtierra’s nor the relating drug possession, ences but the most compelling, and we conclude the presents compelling state no reason to instruction not have a significant im- flight any differently. pact treat a instruction By on the verdict. far the most Flight species powerful are instructions evidence guilt of Valtierra’s was instruction, permissive-inference Crosby’s testimony the that Valtierra cаme leading reject factors us to apartment such instruc- into Costilla’s gun, wielding tions in Litzau and Olson apply equal supportive and the testimony by Sergeant Litzau, flight force to instructions. Crosby 650 Dunnom that sergeant told the Of 7, 187; Olson, at n. 186 & thing immediately N.W.2d 482 same following the 215-16; Oates, see also v. Moreover, N.W.2d State shooting. the fact that Valtier- 584 (Minn.App.2000) by N.W.2d ra his flight reversed returning Saint (“There is no jury need to instruct the that Paul supports argument, his mitigating a [suspect] fleeing displaying any the scene is may harm that have resulted ”). Therefore, guilt.’ ‘consciousness of unduly focusing jury we flight. on Final- hold ly, the district court erred in- flight we note that instruction structing jury permissive on the infer- this case neither misstated substantive law may ence that be drawn from evidence of nor improperly suggested that jury flight. compelled was to make the inference question; instead, fault instruc- Erroneous instructions merit a merely tion was to place emphasis undue new trial “if it beyond cannot be said on among permissible one several infer- reasonable doubt that error no emphasis may require ences. Such undue Olson, significant impact verdict.” cases, reversal in some but here Valtierra’s Olson, In held we guilt independently supported by was an improper jury may instruction have had strong flight evidence and the evidence of verdict, a significant impact on the was partly supportive Valtierra’s de- therefore reversal was warranted when that, fense. beyond We conclude a reason- “knowing instructed that pos doubt, able the jury flight instruction on of drugs session” could be inferred from significant did not impact have proximity drugs defendant’s when verdict. drugs Olson, In found. Id. possession knowing the critical ele Valtierra also that the dis *9 offense, ment the of and the trict by defendant’s court erred giving the standard proximity to drugs just the was jury accomplice liability, not the instruction on critical piece knowing of evidence of pos which states that underlying the crime session, it was foreseeable,” the evidence of must been “reasonably know have Olson, ing possession. “reasonably See 482 N.W.2d at not by per- foreseeable the 434 Crosby after
son,” language the accom- about her conversations with is the of which 609.05, § shooting, expert testi- liability gave statute. Minn.Stat. also some plice (2004); Judges Minn. Dist. generally 2 10 mony regarding dangerous subd. Ass’n, Jury Instruc- particular drug dealing Minnesota of and nature Practice — (4th Criminal, Guides, 4.01 CRIMJIG explained: tion triangulation. Dunnom ed.1999) (amended supplement in 2006 to to taking prepare narcotics class When to the “reasonably foreseeable defen- read you agent, an are be undercover * * * dant”). claim of error was dealt This same taught dangerous that most Earl, recently State v. with money drug time of deal when (Minn.2005). Earl that held in 711 We you come If drugs together. and the on giving the standard instruction matter; buying selling, or it are doesn’t liability not Id. at accomplice was error. officer, an but as undercover said, “to also avoid necеs- But we triangulation multiple term referred future, this issue in the sity dealing of triangu- buyers sellers or that —and suggest that all future on we instructions just simply shape of a tri- lation means liability statutory accomplice use the entire they split means that angle. That so ‘reasonably per- to the phrase foreseeable your just per- can’t attention be on one ” suggestion Earl’s to use the son.’ Id. son, they are of they split that and out statutory phrase apply does not entire your sight. line of trial con- this case since Valtierra’s was triangula- Dunnom said that when there is Earl, ducted our decision and before tion, best, triangulators] “at there are [the not, therefore, a ] instruction! “future worst, you,” there “[a]t rob and are liability.” (emphasis accomplice Id. money.” drugs to kill take added). The result here is identical to the Dunnom then testified that in her opinion Earl, giving result in which held that triangulation part was a of Valtierra’s case. instruction not error. standard See Valtierra that Dunnom’s Earl, 722; 702 see also State v. N.W.2d expert to impermissible amounted testimo- (Minn.2004) White, N.W.2d 509 684 ny guilt on the ultimate issue of since (holding virtually instructions (1) triangulation Dunnom testified oc- case, used in this identical to ones (2) curred, triangulation means whole, aas did not confuse or when read going triangulators are either jury materially or misstate the mislead the rob or kill someone. law); Peirce, v. 364 809- State N.W.2d “ Evidentiary rulings ‘rest within (Minn.1985) (holding that the “reason- court, the sound discretion of the trial foreseeability” for acсomplice able test lia- evidentiary we not reverse such rul will bility jurors not return a allow ” ings of absent clear abuse discretion.’ something proof verdict less than be- Morton, State v. doubt). yond reasonable (Minn.2005) v. (quoting State Sanchez II. (Minn.2004)). Diaz, 683 N.W.2d Generally, testimony that is “otherwise ad turn to Valtierra’s two claims We objectionable First, is not because it em missible evidentiary ar error. by braces an ultimate issue to be decided district gues that the court erred allow Minn. R. Evid. 704. trier fact.” ing, objections, over defense counsel’s Ser Valtierra, involving analysis or testify “opinions legal geant Dunnom to * * * Green, are questions of law and fact “triangu and Medal-Mendoza used mixed Dunnom, any primarily lation.” deemed to use trier who testified
435 substantially jury’s Minn. R. Evid. 704 comm. emt.— influences the deci- fact.” ” Therefore, of regardless whether ex 1977. DeShay, (quot- sion.’ 669 at N.W.2d 888 issue, an ultimate pert testimony embraces Chomnarith, ing State v. 654 N.W.2d question admissibility’ of ‘ultimate “[t]he (Minn.2003)).4 Though expert 665 tes- expert testimony is whether the ex timony triangulation on was erroneous and will the trier of fact pert’s testimony help unnecessary, appears it that the was evaluating resolving in evidence or factual well-positioned to judge it for its minimal DeShay, 669 issues.” State v. N.W.2d worth. The heard the officer’s (Minn.2003) Koskela, (quoting State v. experience with the case was»based her on (Minn.1995)). 536 N.W.2d with Crosby, conversations and heard that of in triangulation The evidence this experience the basis of the officer’s was clearly jury. wаs not to the helpful case Therefore, training. her in unlike triangula- on appeal, As the state admits many situations, expert witness the rea- fact, not, tion occur the sense soning expert testimony behind Dunnom’s Although Crosby Dunnom described. tes- Further, not mysterious jury. was Green, Valtierra, tified Medal- above, hinged as noted because this case a triangle-shaped Mendoza were in forma- Crosby’s on testimony that Valtierra had tion, grouped together, gun at apartment, wielded Costilla’s out so to divert the of spread as attention triangulation testimony unlikely was Costilla, Further, Glasgow, Crosby. substantially jury’s influence the decision. if triangulation by even as defined Dun- erroneously We conclude Dunnom’s occurred, nom had it is that ex- doubtful testimony admitted triangulation about on pert testimony this “tactic” would have was harmless error. Questions helpful jury. re- been garding the intent of assailants who sur- argues Valtierra also that the dis
round and divert the attention of their by ap- by intended victims “can be resolved trict court allowing erred the state to plying principles general or common him ask on cross-examination about the knowledge,” help- it was therefore not specific underlying prior facts his convic testimony ful the jury expert to have trial, aggravated robbery. tion for At evi topic. at (quotation Id. marks prior dence Valtierra’s conviction was omitted). reasons, For these the district introduced, objection, impeach without as by permitting cоurt abused its discretion Minn. R. ment evidence under Evid. testify triangulation.3 Dunnom to about 609(a). objected inquiry Valtierra then underlying into errors, Evidentiary such er as crime, but the district court ruled that admitting war expert testimony, rors “ ‘only testimony essentially rant new trial when the error Valtierra’s own error, 3. Valtierra inquiry also that the foundation for 4. For "the constitutional expert Dunnom’s status —which consisted guilty actually whether the verdict rendered testimony she her had done undercover surely unattributable error." taught narcotics work had been Chomnarith, Here, 665. triangulation during police training her argue —was his erra does not that the error affected insufficient. Because we hold Dunnom's rights, inquire we constitutional so testimony triangulation was otherwise im- substantially influ- whether the verdict was proper, we reach do not the issue of whether by DeShay, enced the error. See supported sufficient foundation. *11 436
“opened underlying-facts derlying the door” evi- “opens when defendant dence. “Opening the door.” the door” occurs party by introducing when “one certain may A impeached witness * ** material creates in opponent prior with of a conviction if evidence right respond with material that would felony or if the conviction was the convic otherwise have been inadmissible.” 8 dishonesty. tion involved Minn. R. Evid. Henry Nordby, W. McCarr <&Jack S. 609(a). normally, prior even if a con Minnesota Practice —Criminal Law and properly impeach viction is introduced as (3d ed.2001).5 609, § prosecutor may “the Procedure 32.54 ment under Rule The concerning not elicit evidence the facts opening-the-door doctrine “is essentially underlying prior [the] conviction[ ].” State sense, one of fairness and common based Edwards, (Minn. 269, v. 348 N.W.2d 273 proposition on the party one should * * * 1984); 48, 51, Norgaard, v. 272 Minn. State advantage not have an unfair (1965). 628, 136 631 Examination N.W.2d that the factfinder presented should not be regarding prior convictions lim “should be with a misleading representa or distorted conviction, ited to the fact of the the na reality.” tion of Id. The doctrine must be offense, identity ture of the and the of the however, applied cautiously, especially Minn, Norgaard, 51, defendant.” 272 at being when it is used to impeach criminal 136 at 631. N.W.2d defendant. If underlying-facts See id. ev accused, against
But the
idence is introduced
an
underlying-facts exclu
rule,
sion is not an iron-clad
and we have
unique possibility
prejudice:
“there is a
“
* * *
scope
held that
‘the
cross-exam
inquiry
to allow broad
into the facts under
prior
ination [regarding
must
convictions]
lying
prior
might
conviction
confuse the
largely
be left
to the discretion of the
issues before the
or have a chilling
court depending upon
[trial]
the circum
effect
right
testify
on the accused’s
”
Griese,
stances.’
v.
State
565 N.W.2d
Griese,
his own defense.”
565 N.W.2d at
(Minn.1997) (second
426
in origi
alteration
Minn,
nal)
(quoting Norgaard, 272
In support
ruling
of the district court’s
631) (the
district
court was
opened
that Valtierra
the door to cross-
within its discretion allowing underlying-
prior aggravated
examination on a
rob-
against
facts evidence
expert
defense’s
conviction,
bery
points
the state
in-
two
psychiatrist when
“prior
convictions
testimony
stances of trial
in which
directly
relate[d]
of the
substance
erra
testimony”).
responsibility”
witness’s
In
full
particular,
“tak[es]
dis
for his
may
First,
trict
permit inquiring
courts
into un
prior crimes.
Valtierra was asked
defendant,
Thunberg,
5. See State v.
492 N.W.2d
during
officer when
direct
(Minn. 1992) (defendant
counsel,
testified on direct that
examination
his own
testified
stabbing
having
he did not remember
the victim be
about
been stabbed and how he there
out,
although
particularly
cause he had blacked
being
and that
fore was
fearful of
stabbed
Gardner,
many
previ
again);
he had blaсked out on
occasions
State v.
(Minn.
(defendant's counsel,
ously,
1983)
he had
by asking
never "been in this kind of
situation”;
testimony opened
the door for
witness on cross-examination about an in
the state to elicit
on cross-examina
stance in which the witness attacked
de
fendant, opened
tion that the defendant
also said that
the door for the state to elic
it,
case-in-chief,
blacked
during
out in connection
an
underlying
earlier
its
Edwards,
aggravated robbery);
conviction for
helped
facts of a
conviction which
ex
(defendant opened
plain why
stand are for what did, though you drugs took [in even Q: you What were of is convicted rob- I am responded: Valtierra “Yes. 2000]?” bing Holiday store a gun, responsibility full for what I did.” taking correct? Second, after testifying about his fear of All say A: I can is the found me police, for talking retaliation guilty respect I their decision. him, you erra’s counsel asked be- “[D]o Q: you you But maintained that were directly stupid go] lieve it was [to Holiday at the station. You com- shooting]?” [after the the Valtierra robbery mitted the but didn’t have a answered, in part: gun, right? very stupid, I it know. you believe was mean, I I I my A: was did convicted. I regret my lot of decisions. I take time and I it put behind me. did, I responsibility everything
full for Q: my That question. is not What I though I that I though, and know even am if asking you have admitted to didn’t know had a [Medal-Mendoza] doing robbery having but not gun, didn’t he though even I know was gun. * ** I going shoot no one but have A: Yes. I did. I to admit made a conscious decision to Yes, Q: you have a gun? * * * get night go in the car that No. I gun just A: never had a I am guy this run him get make for this —I under The I only thing oath. can methamphetamine[.] this say money is—I took some out of According argument to the state’s I store but never was armed. ruling, testimony the district court’s this Q: you being But conviсted opened door for pursue the state to armed? line following questioning on cross-ex- A: Yes. I was. amination: The state ex Q state]: [The change proper because Valtierra’s you were convicted of first de- When responsibility claim that he for took his gree aggravated robbery year in the actions it. past opened door to We Holiday robbing was for First, is not disagree. it clear station, gas right? cited state that Valtierra did, fact, responsibility foil for take A [Valtierra]: prior crimes for he convicted. which ItYes. was. did, it clear assuming is not how Q: “aggravated” What means is taking responsibility past for actions would dangerous were armed with a give advantage” Valtierra an “unfair or weapon, right? him present misleading “a or allow dis A: I responsibility representation Yes. take full for so reality” torted as to underly-
that. overwhelm the baseline rule that shooting wielding Nord- prohibited. are McCarr & been ing facts particularly § This is true by, swpra, gun during shooting. 32.54. This evidence n underlying- little, all, by because admission if at is affected pres- an accused against crimes evidence underlying-facts inquiry at here. issue unique prejudice. opportunity ents a Therefore, underlying- we hold *13 Griese, at 426. We also See 565 N.W.2d substantially inquiry facts here did not underlying- permitting that the believe jury’s the influence decision. creates inquiry at issue here —which facts that have established in cases where We a who as- presumption a that defendant op- of the сumulative effect various errors subsequently is serts his innocence may produce jury, erate to a biased errors un- being is for impeachable convicted “ a of require though new trial even ‘none the “chill- sort of present truthful —would might enough alone have been [the errors] testify right accused’s ing effect the ” Johnson, v. 441 tip the scales.’ State that in his own this court cau- defense” 460, (Minn.1989) (quoting N.W.2d 466 against tioned in Griese. Id. For these 877, Samango, States v. 607 F.2d United that the court reasons we hold district (9th Cir.1979)). a 884 This is not such by inquiry the un- permitting erred into Here, case. all the errors are harmless derlying prior facts of convic- Yaltierra’s the same aggregate the reasons
tion.6 individually. harmless this Principally, are evidentiary not af As an error significаntly is because the errors not fecting rights, improperly constitutional impact jury’s Crosby’s the evaluation of underlying-facts will not admitted evidence critical that Valtierra wielded “ unless ‘the error sub require reversal along with gun Medal-Mendoza and Green ” jury’s stantially the decision.’ influences the shootings when occurred. Chomnarith, at (quoting N.W.2d 665 654 (Minn. Nunn, v. 561 N.W.2d 907 State III. Minn, 1997)); Norgaard, 272 see also argues Finally, Valtierra that even that it (determining 136 at 631 N.W.2d if evidence armed established he was rape the inquire age was error to into of gun with a intended to commit rob victim after fact of the conviction rape the bery, there was not sufficient evidence properly as impeachment, was admitted “reasonably that it show was foreseeable” the prejudicial but error not him that “probable murder would be a reversal). case, In it enough to merit this consequence” robbery, required of that as any improper is doubtful influence liability accomplice the statute. Minn. jury from admis underlying-facts (2004). 609.05, § 2 Stat. subd. But beyond prej would far gone sion have court has that “[w]hether held the defen undisputedly from the resulting udice could reasonably dant foresee that the vic proper aggravated of Valtierra’s admission Further, tim would be is question murdered robbery conviction. as discussed Pierson, above, jury.” fact for the v. powerful evidence of Valti- State most (Minn.1995). Crosby’s And this guilt erra’s this case consists of just rejected trial and after has mur- statements court contention that 404(b) underlying- Spreigl 6. state that the context. Minn. The also See R. Evid. inquiry permissible the two (evidence because wrongs gener- of other crimes or crimes were so similar. evidence intro- ally prove not in con- admissible action purpose showing duced for the similari- therewith). formity prior ty of of a crimes is inadmissible outside consequence robbery. disagree I may probable der not be with the conclusion Atkins, my view, that the court In v. district erred. aggravated robbery. See State (Minn.1996) the district court did abuse its discre- (“Viewing * * * “opened tion in finding light most favor evidence door” to the state’s cross-examination as verdict, jury’s able to the quoted majority opinion. in the more than sufficient evidence conclude murder was reason [the victim’s] examination, On direct defense counsel ** * ably consequence ag foreseeable established that Valtierra had been con- * * *.”). gravated robbery Therefore we felonies, victed of several one of evidence that Valtierra in aggravated robbery hold that which was an convic- drug opinion an tion in The aggravated majority tended to commit rob dis- *14 cusses that he Valtierra’s statement bery permit was sufficient to to find “taking responsibility full what [he] reasonably that it foreseeable to Valti- important my did” in 2000. Also view of probable erra that murder would abe happened this issue what later in robbery. of that consequence Specifically, direct examination. when dis- Affirmed. murder, cussing night of the dеfense you agree, counsel Valtierra: “But asked GILDEA, (concurring). Justice though, you put yourself in that situa- majority’s I concur in the conclusion to tion so accept right?” —is separately affirm the conviction. I write Valtierra responded: my express view on two issues. The I I guess everything look back when first relates to the instruction. flight issue I happened, am still in disbelief. I agree I court erred in district still can’t believe that I am on the stand giving flight instruction as worded in or I in am even a trial for murder in my opinion this our case. view case, never, you know. I I would know prohibiting proper- should not read as be I nobody. never murder I know would every ly flight worded instruction case. I nobody. never shoot know love life. McLaughlin, 250 Minn. See State v. I know murder [the viсtims] if (1957) (“When 664, 671-72 here, you guys tell that I they would proof may is sufficient the trial court gun. no I didn’t have know would. guilt instruct inference added.) (Emphasis At the conclusion of flight, from the connection evidence testimony, the direct defense counsel may proof, other form basis from preclude prosecution moved to inferred, guilt may which but inquiring further into the facts by a qualified general should be statement aggravated robbery conviction. The dis- countervailing of the incidental conditions concluding trict court denied the motion comprehensive question.”); to a view of the door opened that Valtierra had to the Clark, 45 see also States v. F.3d United the 2000 asking questions regarding state (8th Cir.1995); 1250-51 United record, I not con- offense. On this would (8th Roy, States v. 843 F.2d 310-11 district abused its clude that court Cir.1988). the limited allowing broad discretion cross-examination. majori- The second issue relates ty’s conclusion that the district court erred
in allowing inquire the state to on cross-
examination circumstances aggravated
erra’s conviction in 2000 for