Nelson v. State, Minn.S.Ct. 6/22/2016. Mr. Nelson pled guilty to first degree premeditated murder for the stabbing death of Vinessa Lozano; he is serving a life sentence without possibility of release. A court-ordered competency examination revealed that he has Asperger's Disorder:
The examiner found that Nelson was naïve about the criminal justice system, having “absolutely no experience.” The examiner concluded that “Nelson [would] need quite a bit of assistance from his attorney, perhaps more than the average defendant. His degree of naivety coupled with his characterological avoidance, passivity, and lack of interpersonal skills, will require a more active role on the part of his lawyer.”
A second examiner concluded that although Mr. Nelson did not have a mental illness defense he believed that the offense would not have occurred but for Mr. Nelson's Asperger's Disorder. Mr. Nelson entered a guilty plea to the top count of first degree premeditated murder:
When the district court asked Nelson whether he believed Lozano was going to die from the stab wounds, Nelson stated, “I wasn’t sure,” and noted that “it’s not something that I’ve done before.” Nelson added, “[i]t looked serious but I’m not a doctor.” When asked about whether it was his intention to kill Lozano when he stabbed her, Nelson responded, “I think it was . . . just to get her hurt and then . . . to eat with her but it . . . went too far.” When asked if it was his plan to stab Lozano when he began thinking about bringing the knife to work, he told the court that he had “just lashed out irrationally” and that the incident “just happened.”
Well, no one thought this was enough for a valid plea so the lawyers met up with the judge in chambers to cook up a list of questions for Mr. Nelson and the answers. After a trip to the woodshed with his lawyer, the following colloquy occurred:
THE COURT: Mr. Nelson, at some time during this event, I understand that [D.O.] came outside, is that correct?
NELSON: Yes.
THE COURT: And what did you do?
NELSON: I saw him and shooed him away.
THE COURT: You chased him away?
NELSON: Yes.
THE COURT: All right, and then did you go back after that to continue what you were doing?
NELSON: Yes.
THE COURT: In other words, to continue stabbing Vinessa, is that right?
NELSON: Yes.
THE COURT: And is it true that at one point she grabbed the knife to try to stop you?
NELSON: Well, that was before [D.O.] appeared.
THE COURT: Before [D.O.] appeared she grabbed the --
NELSON: Yes.
THE COURT: -- knife to try and --
NELSON: Yes.
THE COURT: All right, and did you pull the knife back away from her and keep stabbing her?
NELSON: Yes.
THE COURT: And by doing that, isn’t it -- you intended to kill her?
NELSON: Yes.
The trial court then pronounced itself satisfied that it was a valid plea and Justice Lillehaug affirms.
After a while, Mr. Nelson filed a post conviction petition asking to withdraw his plea. He said it hadn't been entered knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily. He complained about the "wood shedding," which his trial attorney denied occurred. Justice Lillehaug is able to pull enough questions and answers from the record to satisfy himself and the court that Mr. Nelson had been aware of the charges and of his rights so it was easy enough to get past the knowingly and intelligently requirements. The voluntariness requirement got a bit stickier because that gets to the accuracy of the plea.
When the court was asking Mr. Nelson the open ended questions Mr. Nelson didn't give answers to support the plea, in particular the intention and premeditation to kill. That's when counsel and the judge called a huddle and the next set of questions - after the wood shedding - were strickly leading questions.
See any open-ended questions here to establish the factual basis? Yes, but when Mr. Nelson gave the wrong answers everyone reverted to leading questions. The Justice not only glosses over this absence of narrative questions that would have permitted Mr. Nelson "to express in his own words what happened." State v. Raleigh, 778 N.W.2d 90 (Minn. 2010). The court also seemingly relies upon the inadequate answers to the open ended questions - his own words - to conclude that on the entire record the plea was valid.
No comments:
Post a Comment