Evidence Sufficient to Uphold Conviction For Aiding First Degree Premeditated Murder

State v. McAllister, Minn.S.Ct., 4/8/2015.  Mr. McAllister and his two cousins brutally beat and kicked Michael McMillan.  During the beat down one of the three – apparently not Mr. McAllister, also shot Mr. McMillan.  After the three men left, one of them – again apparently not Mr. McAllister, returned and shot Mr. McMillan again.  He died from those injuries.  A jury convicted Mr. McAllister of aiding and abetting first degree premeditated murder and first degree felony murder.  The trial court sentenced Mr. McAllister to life in prison without possibility of release on the first degree premeditated murder verdict.

On appeal, Mr. McAllister complained that the state had presented insufficient evidence that he had intentionally aided another in committing the murder.  Justice Stras, for the entire court, said that Mr. McAllister’s complaint was wide of the mark.  The justice more or less concedes that the state’s proof that Mr. McAllister intentionally aided another in committing the murder was lacking, but then says, so what.  Under the complicity statute, Mr. McAllister is also liable for any other crime that was reasonably foreseeable as a probable consequence of committing or attempting to commit what the court decided was Mr. McAllister’s intended crime:  aggravated robbery.  It was readily apparent to the court that Mr. McAllister intended the aggravated robbery of Mr. McMillan:  he participated in the beat down during which one of his cousins shot Mr. McMillan.  Further, it was reasonably foreseeable that this beat down/shooting could result in the murder.

After Mr. McAllister’s arrest, officers interrogated him.  After a while he told the officers, “[n]o, ain’t no sense in talking no more man.  You may as well cuff me up, book me, whatever.  It’s just that simple.”  The cops did eventually take that statement as a sign to stop talking to Mr. McAllister.  The cops then let Mr. McAllister talk to one of his cousins, whom the officers knew had confessed.  This cousin told Mr. McAllister just that, whereupon, as hoped, Mr. McAllister resumed the interrogation.  The trial court denied his motion to suppress everything he said after the “cuff me” remark, concluding that this was not an unambiguous invocation of his right to remain silent.  Justice Stras lets that go, saying that even if there was a mistake there was overwhelming evidence of guilt so that any error was harmless.