State v. Robideau, Minn.Ct.App., 6/15/2010. A jury convicted Mr. Robideau of intentional murder by stabbing his girlfriend to death. The trial court enhanced his sentencing because Mr. Robideau had treated his girlfriend with particular cruelty and because his girlfriend’s son was in the home during the homicide.
The particular cruelty factor was based upon a finding that Mr. Robideau left his girlfriend to lie on the floor and asphyxiate on her own blood,and leaving her to be discovered too late to obtain medical assistance. Although failure to obtain medical care for the victim may amount to particular cruelty, that cannot be the case when the crime is intentional murder. Not calling 911 is part of the intentional conduct; it tends to show intent to cause death, an element of the offense.
The presence of a child in the home can be an aggravating factor provided that the state proves that the child saw, heard, or otherwise witnessed the offense. State v. Vance, 765 N.W.2d 390 (Minn. 2009). The trial court found that the child slept through the murder, so the child clearly did not “hear” the offense. The appellate court concludes that the child “otherwise witnessed the offense” because Mr. Robineau knew that the child was home and that he was highly likely to discover his mother’s body soon after the murder, which is exactly what happened.
The appellate court also rejects a challenge to Mr. Robineau’s police interrogation. The court also okayed, on a plain error analysis, a police detective’s testimony that two jail snitches, who were cell mates, had not colluded in their testimony.
No comments:
Post a Comment