State Concedes Error in Conviction of First Degree Felony Murder Based on Unlawful Sale of Controlled Substance Where Defendant was Purchaser of Drugs not Seller

State v. Boldman, Minn.S.Ct., 4/18/12.  Mr. Boldman went over to Mr. Caflle’s place to buy some weed.  Mr. Cafle wound up dead from gunshot wounds and Mr. Boldman found himself charged with first degree felony murder under a statute that says “whoever ‘causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of the person or another’ while committing a felony involving the unlawful sale of a controlled substance, is guilty of first-degree murder.”   Mr. Boldman argued to the trial court and to the supreme court that because he was the purchaser of marijuana and not the seller, this statute did not apply to him. 

The supreme court ducks the answer to the question because the state apparently didn’t want them to answer it.  Having defended the application of the statute to Mr. Boldman before and during trial, the state abandons that position on appeal and concedes error.  That was easy. 

The jury had also convicted Mr. Boldman of second degree intentional murder.  The Supreme Court concludes that the state presented enough evidence to support this conviction, utilizing the somewhat baffling analysis adopted in State v. Matthews, 800 N.W.2d 629 (Min. 2011).  So, the court remands back to the trial court to sentence Mr. Boldman on this count.

In a pro se argument Mr. Boldman argued that the state had violated its discovery obligation by failing to provide a transcript of a recorded police interview of a defense witness.  The state started to impeach the witness by use of this transcript which had not been disclosed to the defense.  When the defense objected, the state abandoned the effort.  The state argued that there had been no violation because the state had provided the recording of that interview.

The supreme court again ducks the question whether the state (and arguably the defense as well) may choose the form of the evidence provided to the defense under the criminal rules.  Although local practice and rules may require advance preparation and disclosure of transcripts of recordings, the rules themselves do not require it, and who really reads those pretrial orders anyway.  Here, the court avoids the question by jumping first to the conclusion that there was no prejudice anyway.