State v. Anderson, Minn.S.Ct. 3/26/2009. A jury convicted Mr. Anderson of first degree murder while committing domestic abuse, Minn.Stat. 609.185(a)(6), for the death of A.G., the one year old son of his girlfriend, Monica. The main appeal issue had to do with evidence to prove the element of past pattern of domestic abuse.
This element requires that the state prove that “the perpetrator has engaged in a past pattern of domestic abuse upon the victim or upon another family or household member.” Id. What the state must prove, however, is the past pattern, not the individual acts that comprise the pattern. State v. Cross, 577 N.W.2d 721 (Minn. 1998). Mr. Anderson complained that the trial court had incorrectly admitted evidence of three instances of "past-pattern evidence":
First: After a night of drinking at a local bar, Mr. Anderson and Monica argued about whether it was time to leave; Monica wasn't quite ready to call it a night. Mr. Anderson was, so he dragged Monica half way out of the bar, pushed her the remainder of the way out. Monica said that she was embarrassed but felt no physical pain.
This one goes to the prosecution. The jury, the court concluded, could have decided that Mr. Anderson dragged Monica out of the bar with the intent either to frighten her or to inflict bodily harm upon her. This is either assault in the fifth degree or misdemeanor domestic assault.
Second: Some three years before the homicide, L.W., Mr. Anderson's main squeeze during the summer - this all occurred up in Wikin County, (some of which sadly enough is currently under water), in the northwest part of the state where summers aren't all that long - wanted to go from Anderson's place out to a bar with friends; Mr. Anderson objected by pushing L.W. against the wall behind his bedroom door to keep her from leaving. She said that she was both hurt and scared. She then left.
Third: The next day, L.W. came back over to Mr. Anderson's place to get her car; Anderson again didn't want her to leave and he again kept her from leaving, this time by forcing her down on the bed, then holding her arms to prevent her from getting up. Anderson's father happened to be there and he told his son to knock it off. As L.W. was leaving, however, Anderson followed her out into the yard, with a renewed desire to keep L.W. in reach. Anderson's brother told Anderson to knock it off; Anderson took umbrage and the brothers "scuffled," during which Anderson punched his brother.
Now, Anderson argued that the thing with L.W. was just a "summer fling," and not a "significant romantic or sexual relationship" required by the statute. Minn.Stat. 518B.01, subd. 2(b). Not only that, it happened too long ago, three years before the homicide. As for the dust up with his brother, it was just that, a "scuffle between brothers." The state said that admitting these two instances was discretionary and not an abuse of discretion, that the defense arguments were all jury questions. If all that isn't enough, then it was harmless error to have admitted them because the trial court properly cautioned the jury, and because there were plenty of other instances to which the defense had not objected.
Whew! The court leaves all that dust up in the air. The court grabbed that harmless error argument and ducked the defense objections all together. Two errors out of three plays usually gets you sent down to Rochester. Not so for Mr. Anderson. Conviction and sentence of life is affirmed.
No comments:
Post a Comment