Trial Court Wrongly Admitted “Immediate Episode Evidence” but Error was Harmless.

State v. Riddley, Minn.S.Ct., 11/25/2009.  A jury convicted Mr. Riddley of first degree premeditated murder and first degree murder committed during an aggravated robbery.  It seems that Mr. Riddley was out and about looking for people to rob.  Along the way, Mr. Riddley, along with two others, robbed R.S. at gunpoint of his wallet and some tools.  After sending R.S. on his way, Riddley stepped away for a moment, shortly to return with a pair of pants and two different sized pairs of shoes.  Mr. Riddley and his companions continued wandering around the neighborhood.  Riddley and one of his companions committed the homicide a few minutes later.

The state introduced evidence of the R.S. robbery at Mr. Riddley’s trial.  The state offered this evidence as something called “immediate-episode evidence,” which the state described as prior acts that were part of the same course of conduct that night.  Mr. Riddley, on the other hand, said the R.S. robbery was a prior bad act for which proper notice had not been provided. 

“Immediate episode evidence” is admissible, it turns out:

where two or more offenses are linked together in point of time or circumstances so that one cannot be fully shown without proving the other, or where evidence of other crimes constitutes part of the res gestae.

State v. Wofford, 262 Minn. 112, 114 N.W.2d 267 (1962).  Another thing:  there has to be a close causal and temporal connection between the prior bad act and the charged crime.  The R.S. robbery passes the “point in time” requirement; the two occurred within fifteen minutes of each other and in more or less the same location.  But, the R.S. robbery does not pass the “close causal” connection:  there’s no evidence that the R.S. robbery motivated the murder or that Riddley did the murder to conceal the robbery.  So, the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the R.S. robbery evidence as “immediate episode evidence.”  Alas, though, this abuse of discretion was harmless error.  The error does enable the appellate court to avoid answering the question whether “immediate episode evidence” is subject to the admissibility requirements of Rule 404(b).

Mr. Riddley also complained about the granting of a motion by the state to dismiss a potential juror for cause.  The appellate court finds no error in the dismissal and continues its general refusal to apply Batson to challenges for cause.