Pulczinski v. State
| Decision Date | 06 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | A21-0065 |
| Citation | 972 N.W.2d 347 |
| Parties | Devon James PULCZINSKI, Appellant, v. STATE of Minnesota, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Suzanne M. Senecal-Hill, Assistant Public Defender, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for appellant.
Keith Ellison, Minnesota Attorney General, Peter Magnuson, Assistant Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota; and Seamus Duffy, Pennington County Attorney, Thief River Falls, Minnesota, for respondent.
This case requires us to resolve two questions. First, is appellant Devon Pulczinski entitled to relief from his criminal convictions based on unobjected-to limitations that the district court placed on the presence of the public in the trial courtroom in response to the COVID-19 pandemic? Second, did the district court abuse its discretion by denying Pulczinski's motion for a hearing under Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co. , 258 Minn. 325, 104 N.W.2d 301, 303 (1960), and Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.03, subd. 20(6) ? Because the unobjected-to limitations did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings, and because the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying a Schwartz hearing under Rule 26.03, subdivision 20(6), we affirm.
A Pennington County grand jury indicted Pulczinski with first-degree murder in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.185(a)(1) (2020) ; second-degree intentional murder in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.19, subd. 1(1) (2020) ; and first-degree arson in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.561, subd. 1 (2020), in connection with the death of A.E. Pulczinski pleaded not guilty and demanded a jury trial.
Pulczinski's jury trial was scheduled to start on April 13, 2020. But on March 13, 2020, Governor Tim Walz declared a peacetime emergency because of the COVID-19 pandemic. On March 20, the Chief Justice issued an order barring all district courts from beginning new jury trials before April 22, or until further order. Continuing Operations of The Courts of the State of Minnesota Under a Statewide Peacetime Declaration of Emergency, No. ADM20-8001, Order at 3 (Minn. filed Mar. 20, 2020).
On May 15, 2020, the Chief Justice issued an Order Governing the Operations of the Minnesota Judicial Branch Under Emergency Executive Order Nos. 20-53, 20-56, ADM20-8001 (Minn. filed May 15, 2020). The Order noted that the Judicial Branch was entering a "transitional phase" to allow in-person proceedings. Id. at 1. The Order further required district courts to adhere to safety and exposure precautions laid out in the Judicial Branch COVID-19 Preparedness Plan. Id. at 2, 5–7.
Consistent with direction from the Judicial Council, each county was required to prepare a jury trial plan and have it approved before jury trials could be held. Pennington County submitted and received approval of its plan, and we take judicial notice of it. The Pennington County plan notes that it "takes into consideration the resources of the Ninth Judicial District and the capacity of our Judicial Center." The Pennington County plan also states that "[s]ocial distance markings have been made in the courtrooms and the jury room to ensure everyone maintains proper spacing of 6 feet distance (360 degrees) at all times." To ensure social distancing, the plan states that members of the public and/or media may observe court proceedings via interactive television capabilities (ITV) from either the other courtroom or the Pennington County boardroom, which is in the same building as the courtrooms. The plan also notes that both video/audio observation and audio only would be acceptable mediums.
Pennington County also submitted a Social Distancing Chart for Jury Trials (Jury Chart), which shows proposed seating arrangements for counsel, court staff, and jurors. The Jury Chart marks 14 socially distanced circles in the courtroom gallery (the courtroom space where the public sits in nonpandemic times) for 12 jurors and 2 alternates.
Additionally, the Pennington County plan references a letter that all potential jurors would receive from the Chief Judge of Pennington County. In the letter, the Pennington County Chief Judge wrote: "Our goal is to protect the rule of law and gradually resume normal functions in our courts while at the same time protecting the health of our community members who are exercising and performing their duties, responsibilities, and rights in our courthouses." She also assured potential jurors that there would be ample space for social distancing, stating:
On August 12, 2020, the district court held a pretrial hearing. At the outset, the court noted, The lawyers made no response at that time.
The parties did have some discussion related to accommodating the public. During the August 12, pretrial hearing, defense counsel requested that witnesses who had finished testifying be allowed to watch the trial from the viewing rooms:
Also, it would be my position since based on our prior discussions from today and the fact that there is going to be two rooms for the—or potentially two rooms for people to watch the trial, it would be that once all witnesses are done and they're released, then they could watch the trial if there is still a trial ongoing.
The prosecutor consented.
Later, after discussing other pretrial matters, the court asked, "Counsel, were there any other issues that either side would like to bring up here today?" In response, the prosecutor asked,
The district court then responded by describing on the record the protocols and how the courtroom would be set up differently because of the COVID-19 pandemic. This included safety and exposure precautions, like the need for social distancing. The court stated, "Mr. Pulczinski is entitled to a public trial, and so the way that counties and our state are conducting trials is by having public access in other places, not just the courtroom itself."
The district court explained that the jury would sit in the gallery six feet apart and that they were "going to take up that whole space and that is why we are not able to have members of the public in this particular courtroom." The court further explained that the public could watch the trial in Courtroom 1 and the Pennington County Board Room, both of which were equipped with ITV.
At the hearing, the district court explained that it had submitted a jury plan through two layers of state court administration so it could conduct trials in Pennington County. An acceptable plan required social distancing. The court added, "You can see we've got signs and tape and markers on the floor and a different configuration for how counsel is sitting, and this is all because of our pandemic and the social distancing requirements that we have to follow." Additionally, the court talked about the need to accommodate Pulczinski's family and the victim's family.1
After describing the protocols, the court once again asked, "Counsel, any other matters that you would like to put on the record or you would like me to put on the record?" Defense counsel did not raise any objections to the trial restrictions; instead, he responded with a clarifying question about motions in limine and impeaching a witness.
At the end of the pretrial hearing, defense counsel noted his dissatisfaction with having to sit six feet away from his client. But he consented to the trial restriction because "given the pandemic, given the work everyone has done to get this trial going and given the fact that it's been about a year and a half since the allegations, we are comfortable with the approved distance between myself and my client." The court acknowledged defense counsel's statements and remarked that the Pennington County jury plan included six feet of space between attorneys, clients, and even co-counsel.
The district court held voir dire from August 31 through September 3, 2020. On the first day, a potential juror was excused because she had possible COVID-19 symptoms. Later that day, the parties learned that an essential witness for the State was exposed to COVID-19. Because of health concerns, the parties discussed having the essential witness—a lead investigator—testify in the adjoining courtroom via ITV. Pulczinski consented on the record and waived his right to confront her in person.
But the next day, the parties agreed to postpone the trial for two weeks to accommodate the witness who had to quarantine. Defense counsel expressed his client's preference for in-person testimony. After discussion, the district court agreed to start the trial on September 14, 2020, so that the witness could "safely come into the courthouse and testify."
The parties then agreed to continue with jury selection. The district court allowed one additional alternate juror to be seated in case something unexpected happened or someone got COVID-19. Before the trial began, however, the court excused the additional alternate juror because "15 is one too many for how many we can socially distance safely inside the courtroom itself." Finally, because the trial date was postponed, the court held a hearing before the jurors were sworn in for trial duty to ensure that no juror had learned anything about the case over the two-week delay.
At trial, the State presented the following evidence. In March 2019, Pulczinski was living in an upper duplex in Thief River Falls. Pulczinski knew the victim because they were both part of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lampkin
...only if it seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. at 740 ; Pulczinski v. State , 972 N.W.2d 347, 356 (Minn. 2022). Lampkin's self-defense jury-instruction challenge clears only the first hurdle of our plain-error review by identifying a......
-
State v. Bey
...of an unobjected-to structural error—specifically, a claimed violation of the defendant's right to a public trial—in Pulczinski v. State, 972 N.W.2d 347 (Minn. 2022). In Pulczinski we held that, absent an objection during trial, we lack the discretion to grant relief for structural errors u......
-
State v. Lampkin
... ... plain-error review, even if Lampkin could establish that a ... plain error occurred, we have discretion to correct the error ... only if it seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or ... public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. at ... 740; Pulczinski v. State , 972 N.W.2d 347, ... 356 (Minn. 2022). Lampkin's self-defense jury-instruction ... challenge clears only the first hurdle of our plain-error ... review by identifying an error ... A ... Self-Defense Instruction with an Assault or ... ...
-
State v. Stone
...the error only when it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings." Pulczinski v. State , 972 N.W.2d 347, 356 (Minn. 2022).The supreme court has indicated a hesitancy to deem the admission of hearsay plain error. As noted in Manthey :The number a......