Videotape of Defendant’s Police Interrogation Properly Admitted as Rebuttal Evidence.

State v. Pearson, Minn.S.Ct., 11/25/2009.  A jury convicted Mr. Pearson of various counts of homicide for the death of Corodarl Merriman.  Mr. Pearson shot Mr. Merriman during the early stages of a drug deal.  Mr. Merriman’s brother, Willie, witnessed the homicide and testified that Mr. Pearson shot Corodarl because Mr. Pearson suspected that he was a cop.  Mr. Pearson, on the other hand, testified that Corodarl pulled a gun on him and so he shot in self defense.

The state wanted to introduce Mr. Pearson’s statement to a police officer to rebut Mr. Pearson’s claim of self defense.  Mr. Pearson objected, saying it wasn’t proper rebuttal.  Mr. Pearson had testified that most of what he’d said to the cop had been a lie and that he was only trying to find out what evidence the police had on him.  The trial court admitted the police statement as the best evidence by which the jury could know what had really been said during the interview and to gauge Mr. Pearson’s credibility. The appellate court agreed but it did conclude that Mr. Pearson’s six references to obtaining counsel should have been redacted; the appellate court, under a plain error analysis, concluded that this error did not affect Mr. Pearson’s substantial rights and thus declined to give him any relief on this error.

Mr. Pearson made numerous complaints of prosecutorial misconduct, which the appellate court rejected.  The appellate court also rejected a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel