Batson Challenge Denied, and No Abuse of Discretion by Trial Court’s Admission of Evidence of Defendant’s Threat of a Witness

State v. Diggins, Minn.S.Ct., 8/28/2013.  A jury convicted Mr. Diggins of two counts of premeditated first degree murder and various other related offenses.  On appeal, he complained about the denial of his Batson challenge to the state’s peremptory removal of an African-American prospective juror, Juror 16; and about the admission of evidence that he had assaulted and threatened a witness two days before trial.

Juror 16 was the second African-American prospective juror examined; the state had not challenged Juror 4, who was also African-American and who already sat on the jury.  When Mr. Diggins objected to the state’s peremptory removal of Juror 16, the trial court said that Mr. Diggins had not made a prima facie showing that the state’s challenge was racially motivated.  This could have ended the whole thing but the trial court plowed ahead and asked the state to articulate its reasons for the challenge.  The state said that its concerns were about inconsistencies between the juror’s answers on the questionnaire and responses in court, and about the juror’s “intellectual capacity” to serve as a juror.  The trial court said that this was a race-neutral explanation.

Writing for a six person court, Justice Lillehaug not participating, Justice Dietzen agreed that the state had articulated a race-neutral explanation for the challenge. 

On the evidence issue, Justice Dietzen reminds everyone that evidence of a defendant’s threat against a witness is relevant to show consciousness of guilt.  State v. Harris, 521 N.W.2d 348 (Minn. 1994).  However, such evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury.  Or, if it tends to show that a defendant was predisposed to commit the crime charged.  So, the trial court has to play Goldilocks and admit just the right amount of such evidence and then instruct the jury about its function.  Here, the court concludes that the trial court’s handling of this evidence was just right.