Caldwell v. State
| Decision Date | 19 October 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. A15–1587.,A15–1587. |
| Citation | 886 N.W.2d 491 |
| Parties | Lincoln Lamar CALDWELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Minnesota, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Lincoln Lamar Caldwell, Stillwater, MN, pro se.
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Saint Paul, MN; and Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Linda K. Jenny, Assistant County Attorney, Minneapolis, MN, for respondent.
Considered and decided by the court without oral argument.
In 2008, appellant Lincoln Lamar Caldwell was convicted of first-degree murder for the benefit of a gang on an accomplice-liability theory. We affirmed Caldwell's conviction and the denial of his first two postconviction petitions in August 2011. See State v. Caldwell (Caldwell I ), 803 N.W.2d 373 (Minn.2011). Caldwell subsequently filed a third postconviction petition in May 2012, in which he alleged that three witnesses presented false testimony at his trial. The postconviction court summarily denied Caldwell's petition. Caldwell appealed to our court, arguing that the postconviction court abused its discretion when it did not grant him an evidentiary hearing. We reversed the postconviction court's decision and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing on the witness-recantation claim. See Caldwell v. State (Caldwell II ), 853 N.W.2d 766 (Minn.2014).
Following an evidentiary hearing, the postconviction court denied Caldwell's third postconviction petition. Caldwell appeals, arguing that the State and the postconviction court intentionally misstated the law and intimidated Shawntis Turnage, a recanting witness, when they apprised Turnage of his Fifth Amendment rights. Caldwell also alleges that the postconviction court erred when it struck the testimony Turnage gave before invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the denial of Caldwell's third postconviction petition.
In June 2006, 18–year–old Brian Cole died from injuries he sustained during a drive-by shooting near the corner of Eighth Avenue and Penn Avenue in North Minneapolis. Cole was the unintended victim of a gunshot fired through the open window of an SUV. After conducting an investigation, police officers determined that Cole was standing near members of the One–Nine gang when he was shot. Although Cole was not a member of a gang, the One–Nine gang was engaged in an ongoing rivalry with the LL gang at the time. Witnesses identified Caldwell, who was a member of the LL gang, as the driver of the SUV from which the gunshot originated. Witnesses identified the shooter as another member of the LL gang. Relying on this and other evidence, the State prosecuted Caldwell and the shooter for Cole's murder. Caldwell I, 803 N.W.2d at 381.
At Caldwell's trial, the State's witnesses included Carnell Harrison, William Brooks, and Shawntis Turnage. Harrison and Brooks were both passengers in the SUV when Cole was shot, and they testified about Caldwell's role in the shooting. Turnage, who was a friend of Caldwell, was not present during the shooting but testified that Caldwell spoke to him about the shooting at a friend's house shortly afterward. According to Turnage, Caldwell had “got down with the One–Nine[s],” which Turnage understood to mean “fighting or shooting or [a] brawl or something.” Turnage testified that Caldwell told him that “Ill Will,” one of the leaders of the One–Nine gang, was the “intended target.” Caldwell revealed to Turnage that the gun used was a grey and black 9mm Smith and Wesson semiautomatic handgun. Based on Caldwell's description, Turnage recognized the gun as one that he had seen in Caldwell's possession on several occasions.
Following the trial, the jury found Caldwell guilty of all six counts of murder that were charged in the indictment. In June 2008, the district court convicted him of first-degree murder for the benefit of a gang—the most serious offense—and sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of release.
Caldwell filed a direct appeal of his conviction in September 2008. We stayed his direct appeal while Caldwell filed two petitions for postconviction relief. The postconviction court denied both of Caldwell's postconviction petitions, and Caldwell appealed. We consolidated Caldwell's three appeals. In August 2011, we affirmed Caldwell's conviction and the denial of both petitions for postconviction relief. See Caldwell I, 803 N.W.2d at 377.
In May 2012, Caldwell filed his third petition for postconviction relief, in which he alleged that Harrison, Brooks, and Turnage presented false testimony at his trial. In support of his petition, Caldwell submitted a statement from each of the three witnesses, along with a signed and notarized affidavit from the investigator who interviewed each witness. In the affidavit, the investigator confirmed that each witness's statement was an accurate transcription of his recorded interview with the witness. In October 2012, the postconviction court denied Caldwell's petition without holding an evidentiary hearing. The postconviction court was not reasonably well satisfied that the trial testimony of Brooks and Harris was false, nor was it reasonably well satisfied that Turnage's testimony, even if it were false, might have affected the jury's verdict.
Caldwell appealed the denial of his third postconviction petition and argued that the postconviction court abused its discretion when it denied his petition without holding an evidentiary hearing. Caldwell II, 853 N.W.2d at 768. On appeal, we determined that the postconviction court erred when it summarily denied Caldwell's petition. Id. We concluded that Caldwell alleged facts that, if proven, would entitle him to relief. Id. Therefore, we remanded the case to the postconviction court for an evidentiary hearing to determine the credibility of the recantations. Id. at 778.
In December 2014, the postconviction court held the evidentiary hearing. The postconviction court first determined that it would not admit any witness's recorded statement unless the witness testified. Thereafter, Turnage took the stand. After Turnage was sworn in, the postconviction court gave the following warning:
The court subsequently asked Turnage if he understood his rights, and Turnage replied that he did. The court proceeded to ask Turnage whether he needed time to talk to an attorney or if he could testify that day. Turnage in return inquired whether talking to an attorney “would ... prolong this” to which the court responded, “Yes.” Turnage then said he did not want to talk to an attorney.
Following that colloquy, Caldwell's counsel began his examination of Turnage. Turnage recanted his previous trial testimony, explaining that he had not seen Caldwell on the day of the shooting and had never seen Caldwell with a gun. Additionally, Turnage stated that he did not visit a friend's house with Caldwell on the day of Cole's death or hear Caldwell say he “got down with the One–Nines” at that time. Turnage also explained why his testimony had changed since the trial in 2008. According to Turnage, he was young at the time that he testified and was “intimidated about it.”
On cross-examination, the State proceeded to question Turnage about the change in his testimony. The State recounted how Turnage testified under oath at trial and agreed to tell the truth in exchange for a lesser sentence on a separate charge he was facing. Turnage explained that he did not tell the truth at trial. During his testimony, however, Turnage expressed confusion about his right to refrain from answering questions that might incriminate him. The postconviction court at one point told Turnage that he had to answer a question unless he thought it would incriminate him in some way. Turnage responded that he was already incriminated and that he did not know what was going on. Turnage also testified that he suffered a traumatic brain injury resulting in long-term memory loss, so he was unable to recall his previous testimony. When the prosecutor reminded him of his previous testimony in the form of a question, Turnage said he could recall his trial testimony.
The State then attempted to show why Turnage might have changed his testimony. The State asked Turnage if he was approached in prison about his testimony and if he recalled providing multiple statements to investigators that two prisoners threatened to stab him if he did not change his testimony. Turnage said, “No,” and immediately asked the court whether he had to continue answering the State's questions. At that time, the postconviction court reminded Turnage:
[Y]ou do have to answer the questions unless they would incriminate you. If you think this would get you charged with a crime you can refuse to answer if you want, but it's gotta be something that would incriminate you and get you into trouble. But, providing the information, since you have chosen to testify, is something you have to do.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jones
...courts] apply a modified plain-error standard that requires the defendant to show an error was made that was plain." Caldwell v. State, 886 N.W.2d 491, 501 n.6 (Minn. 2016). "An error is plain if it is clear or obvious; this means an error that violates or contradicts case law, a rule, or a......
- Phone Recovery Servs., LLC v. Qwest Corp.
-
Caldwell v. Miles, Case No. 17-cv-1971 (SRN/TNL)
...for an evidentiary hearing. Id. at 778. The postconviction court held the evidentiary hearing in June 2015. Caldwell v. State, 886 N.W.2d 491, 498 (Minn. 2016) ("Caldwell III"). Carnell Harrison recanted his trial testimony, and Brooks could not be located. Id. After Turnage was sworn as a ......
-
Caldwell v. State
...the district court held an evidentiary hearing and subsequently denied the petition. On appeal, we affirmed. Caldwell v. State , 886 N.W.2d 491 (Minn. 2016) ( Caldwell III ), cert. denied , ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S. Ct. 2138, 198 L.Ed.2d 214 (2017).In 2020, Caldwell filed his fourth postconvict......