Whether Trial Court Is Required to Consider Comparative Demographics of Original and Transfer Jurisdiction in Change of Venue Determination Remains Unanswered

State v. Fairbanks, Minn.S.Ct., 2/5/2014.  A jury convicted Mr. Fairbanks of first degree murder of a peace officer, and of various other crimes.  Mr. Fairbanks shot Mahnomen County Sheriff’s Deputy Dewey.  He and his buddy then got into a shoot out with other deputies until eventually the two surrendered.  The deputy did not die for another eighteen months.

Mr. Fairbanks asked the trial court to move the trial out of Mahnomen County.  The state did not object to this request.  The trial court moved the trial to neighboring Polk County.  Mr. Fairbanks, who is Native American, didn’t like this choice because the percentage of Native Americans in Polk County is considerably lower than is the percentage of Native Americans in Mahnomen County.   Now, Mr. Fairbanks didn’t complain about the different demographics in his transfer papers; he only complained about prejudicial publicity.  Justice Lillehaug, writing for a unanimous court, said that the trial court adequately took care of any pretrial publicity in moving the trial out of Mahnomen County and over to Polk County.  That being the case, then the court doesn’t have to answer the question whether racial demographics is a proper factor to add into the mix of factors that the court has previously identified:  safety and convenience of a defendant, traveling distances and facilities for parties and witnesses,  and  the technology and security available at the court house.

Apparently, there is a common law rule that an accused can’t be prosecuted for murder when the victim has died more than a year and a day after the event that caused the death.  The court says that if there ever were such a rule in Minnesota then the adoption of the penal code back in the ‘60’s abrogated it.

Mr. Fairbanks complained about the admission of some of the autopsy photographs and of a “spark of life” photo of the deputy.  The court made short work of these complaints.  Photographs that are accurate, relevant and not prejudicial are admissible, even the gruesome ones.  So long as the “spark of life” photo was not an attempt to invoke undue sympathy – assuming that one can make such a determination – then it’s admissible as well.  And because the trial court had already denied the defense in limine motion to exclude these photographs it was alright for the prosecutor to have shown them in opening statement.