State v. Griffin, Minn.S.Ct., 11/16/2016. A jury convicted Mr. Griffin of first degree felony murder. Mr. Griffin and a buddy, Mr. Grant, had unsuccessfully tried to rob a guy who was talking down the street. Apparently undeterred, but perhaps frustrated, they tried again. Here's what happened:
After the unsuccessful robbery, Griffin and Grant walked down a nearby alley until they reached the backyard of 3629 Columbus Avenue South, which was the home of Francisco Benitez-Hernandez and L.B-H. Benitez-Hernandez, L.B-H., and their brotherin-law P.Y-E. were in the backyard sitting at a table drinking beer. As Griffin and Grant entered the backyard, Griffin aimed the pistol at Benitez-Hernandez. When Griffin demanded money, Benitez-Hernandez said they had no money. Griffin then hit BenitezHernandez with the gun in the head above his eyebrow, causing Benitez-Hernandez to bend over and hold his bleeding head. L.B-H. stood up and threw a beer bottle at Griffin in an effort to distract him. Griffin ducked out of the way, fell backward, caught himself, and then “turned around and . . . fired at [L.B-H.].” The bullet struck L.B-H. just above the elbow of his left arm. As L.B-H. ran to get help, Benitez-Hernandez grabbed Griffin’s leg. Griffin redirected the pistol at Benitez-Hernandez’s chest and fired a shot. The bullet penetrated Benitez-Hernandez’s chest, fatally wounding him. Griffin and Grant fled the scene before the police arrived.
Over objection, the state was allowed to present Spreigl evidence, which Justice Hudson summarized:
At trial, the State called O.R-H., who testified that on January 3, 2008, he was walking to work and was at First Avenue and 27th Street in Minneapolis when he noticed two men walking behind him. Approximately one block later, one of the men ran up behind him. When O.R.-H. turned around, the man punched him in the nose and rummaged through his jacket and pants pockets for money. O.R-H. was unable to make an in-court identification. The State then called Officer Keia Pettis, who testified that on January 3, 2008, during a show-up identification procedure, O.R-H identified Griffin as the person who attempted to rob him.
Now, a couple of things. First, Justice Hudson never says why the state wanted to introduce this evidence. As a result, the court doesn't have to engage in the analysis required by State v. Ness, 707 N.W.2d 676 (Minn. 2006). Instead, the court jumps straight to the prejudice consideration and summarily concludes that there was none. The Court is down two members for this Opinion, neither Chutich nor McKeig having been part of the court at the time of submission, but were there really not three votes to uphold or reject the admission of this evidence? Second, Justice Stras, although he concurs in the court's opinion, is unhappy with the ducking of the question. So, he puts on his professorial hat to write about why he thinks that when it comes to admitting Spreigl evidence to prove "plan" the court's jurisprudence has come off the rails.
Second, the next case to come along with "plan" Spreigl evidence can take some lessons from Justice Stras's concurrence. While this opinion offers no assistance to ferreting out the correctness of admitting Spreigl evidence for such purpose, Justice Stras gives us the full treatise.
No comments:
Post a Comment