A Defendant's In Court Explanation For Rejecting A Plea Offer Is Not Admissible Under Rule 410.

State v. Brown, Minn.S.Ct., 1/5/2011.  I wrote about the court of appeals opinion here.  The State charged Mr. Brown with attempted second degree murder, and with possession of a pistol without a permit.  The state offered a plea to the attempt, with a recommended sentence of 130 months.  At the pretrial, in the midst of making a record of this offer, Mr. Brown engaged in a spirited colloquy with the trial court, after which he entered a plea of not guilty.  Among other statements, Mr. Brown asserted a defense of self defense and defense of others, and claimed that he had a permit for the pistol.

At trial, Mr. Brown testified, again asserting his claims of self defense and defense of others.  He also testified that he did not have a permit for the gun.  The prosecutor was all over this, asking if it wasn't true that Mr. Brown had previously told the court that he did have a permit.  After the trial court over ruled the objection to the question, Mr. Brown stated that he did recall saying that.  The defense thought that Mr. Brown's statements during the discussion of the plea offer were excluded from evidence under Rule 410, which states in pertinent part:

Evidence of a plea of guilty, later withdrawn, or a plea of nolo contendere, or of an offer to plead guilty or nolo contendere to the crime charged or any other crime or of statements made in connection with any of the foregoing pleas or offers, is not admissible in any civil, criminal, or administrative action, case, or proceeding whether offered for or against the person who made the plea or offer.

The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court's ruling.  It pointed out that Mr. Brown neither pled guilty nor offered to do so.  In fact, he mostly complained that he should not have been charged with the attempt because his actions were justified, and then he lied about having a gun permit. 

The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals.  It did so under a plain error analysis, because defense counsel did not specify the specific ground for the objection.  The court acknowledged that from the context of the examination there were any of three possible objections, one of which invoked Rule 410 but the court was unwilling to select that or the other two possible grounds.

Even so, it was plain error to have admitted the testimony.  Mr. Brown never offered to plead guilty, but he did make statements “in connection with” a plea offer, in this case the state’s sentencing recommendation.  The court is willing to say that this fits within the language of the rule, especially when the statements came about during an exchange that the trial court initiated.  This plain error is also prejudicial.  This is because of the importance of Mr. Brown’s credibility on the claim of self defense and defense of others.  Finally, the plain error also seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.  Mr. Brown gets a new trial on the attempted second degree murder.