State v. Gatson, Minn.S.Ct., 8/3/2011. A young African American male – a Mr. Petersen - knocked on Shyloe Linde’s apartment door, asking to speak with her. Instead, he punched her twice in the stomach. Ms. Linde was six months pregnant. She began having contractions immediately after the assault. Later, at the hospital, doctors performed an emergency cesarean section to deliver the baby, who weighed just two pounds. Nine days later, doctors recommended the removal of life supports for the baby, and the baby died.
Mr. Gatson, who was the baby’s father, was also the getaway driver for the guy who threw the punches. A jury convicted him of first degree premeditated murder, second degree murder, and first degree assault. The trial court imposed a sentence of life without possibility of release. On appeal, Mr. Gatson raised a number of issues.
Batson Claim: Prospective juror R.R., an African American male, had a friend who went on trial for shooting someone. R.R. said that he had not really followed the trial, but then later admitted to having attended at least one day of that trial. The state struck R.R., saying in response to the Batson challenge that R.R. had not been forthright in his answers about his friend’s plight. The trial court accepted this reason as race neutral and added the court’s concern that as a result R.R. would identify with Mr. Gatson. Mr. Gatson said that the trial court could not substitute its own reason for the state’s reason in determining whether the state’s seemingly race neutral explanation was a pretext. The supreme court rejects this argument, concluding that the trial court was only explaining why it agreed with the state’s explanation.
Sufficiency of Evidence Claim: Part of this claim was the argument that the state did not prove that the baby was a “human being” because the state did not prove that the baby was able to breath without the support of artificial means. However, the supreme court says that the focus is on the fact of life rather than the quality of life. So long as the baby is born alive and has an existence independent of and separate from its mother it is a “human being” for purposes of the homicide statutes. The state met that burden.
Along the same lines, Mr. Gatson argued that the state failed to prove causation,that the act of removing the baby from life support was a superseding intervening cause that relieved him of criminal liability. The supreme court applies a foreseeable consequences test, as it had done previously in State v. Olson, 435 N.W.2d 530 (Minn. 1989). The medical intervention here, including the decision to discontinue that intervention, was a foreseeable consequence of punching Linde in the stomach.
Jury Instructions: Mr. Gatson argued that the trial court should have instructed the jury on the definition of “human being.” He had not requested this instruction before deliberations began but he did include it in his motion for a new trial. In that case, Rule 26.03, subd. 19(4)(f) of the criminal rules comes into play:
Objections to instructions claiming error in fundamental law or controlling principle may be included in a motion for a new trial even if not raised before deliberations.
Plain error analysis, however, is still the proper analysis. The supreme court rejects this argument. First, the instructions that the trial court did give on the elements of the offenses were correct. Second, Mr. Gatson’s theory at trial was that he did not procure Mr. Petersen either to assault her or to kill her baby he was not entitled to an instruction defining human being; his theory was not that the baby was not a “human being.” Had this been Mr. Gatson’s theory, then the supreme court would have had to decide whether he was entitled to the human being instruction, but that wasn’t the case.
Removal of life supports: Having already concluded that the state had shown causation, it was easy enough to conclude that Mr. Gatson was not entitled to an instruction regarding removal of life supports. The supreme court also approved the instruction that the trial court did give on causation, which it recommended in Olson:
Causation. The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s acts had a substantial part in bringing about Destiny Gatson’s death. It is not necessary that the defendant’s acts be the sole cause of death so long as the defendant’s acts start a [chain] of events which results in or substantially contributes to the death. And, further, if this chain of causation is found to exist, it is not broken by any treatment or lack of treatment administered to Destiny Gatson by the doctors in this case.
Lesser included offenses: The supreme court rejects Mr. Gatson’s argument that the trial court should have instructed the jury on attempted murder and first degree assault as lesser included offenses of the first degree murder charge.
Crawford Claim: The trial court admitted Mr. Petersen’s guilty plea transcript when it concluded that Mr. Gatson had forfeited his confrontation rights by having someone threaten Mr. Petersen. The supreme court ducks the question whether Mr. Gatson procured Mr. Petersen’s silence and says that even if there were an error it was harmless. The supreme court also ducks the hearsay issue, saying that if there were error it was harmless.
Prosecutor’s Opening Statement: The state told the jury that Mr. Peterson would testify to certain things, but midway through the trial Mr. Peterson said he would not testify at all. There was no evidence that the prosecutor said this about Peterson in bad faith, and the jury heard just about everything that Peterson would have said from other sources.
No comments:
Post a Comment