State v. Brown, Nos. A10–0992

• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
• Writing for the Court: PAGE
• Citation: 815 N.W.2d 609
• Parties: STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Jerrell Michael BROWN, Appellant.
• Docket Number: Nos. A10–0992,A11–1293.
• Decision Date: 03 July 2012

815 N.W.2d 609

STATE of Minnesota, Respondent,
v.
Jerrell Michael BROWN, Appellant.

Nos. A10–0992, A11–1293.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 3, 2012.

[815 N.W.2d 611]

Syllabus by the Court

1. Locking the courtroom doors during jury instructions did not implicate appellant's

[815 N.W.2d 612]

right to a public trial when the trial court announced that all spectators were welcome to stay and the jury instructions did not comprise a proportionately significant portion of trial.

2. The trial court did not err when it admitted evidence of appellant's participation in a previous reckless-discharge-of-a-firearm incident.

3. The trial court did not err when it admitted expert gang testimony regarding the general workings and activities of a gang.

4. The trial court did not err when it instructed the jury on aiding and abetting because, when viewed as a whole, the jury instructions did not relieve the State of its burden of proof.

5. The prosecutor's failure to disclose impeaching evidence did not warrant a new trial because the impeaching evidence was not material.

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, MN, Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Michael Richardson, Assistant County Attorney, for respondent.

David W. Merchant, Chief Appellate Public Defender, G. Tony Atwal, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, MN, for appellant.

OPINION
PAGE, Justice.

In March 2010 Jerrell Michael Brown was convicted of aiding and abetting first-degree murder for the benefit of a gang in connection with the shooting death of Darius Ormond Miller, which occurred on August 29, 2008. On appeal, Brown challenges his conviction, claiming that the trial court violated his right to a public trial and erred in its evidentiary rulings and jury instructions. Brown also claims the prosecutor violated his right to a fair trial by failing to disclose impeachment evidence. Because the facts of this case do not implicate the right to a public trial, the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or its jury instructions, and the undisclosed impeachment evidence was not material, we affirm Brown's conviction.

On August 29, 2008, Darius Miller was fatally shot outside a club in downtown Minneapolis. Following a police investigation, the State filed a criminal complaint alleging that Jerrell Brown aided and abetted the second-degree intentional murder of Miller. Minn.Stat. § 609.19, subd. 1(1) (2010); Minn.Stat. § 609.11 (2010); Minn.Stat. § 609.05, subd. 1 (2010). The State later presented the evidence against Brown to a grand jury. To link Brown to Miller's murder, the State provided the grand jury with forensic evidence that a .9mm bullet casing found near Miller's body matched a .9mm bullet casing recovered from the scene of a June 2008 reckless-discharge-of-a-firearm offense, which occurred in Richfield and to which Brown had previously pleaded guilty.¹ Using a transcript of Brown's guilty plea, the State established Brown's participation in the June 2008 Richfield shooting incident. The State provided the grand jury with additional evidence, including eyewitness testimony and surveillance camera footage. The grand jury indicted Brown on four

[815 N.W.2d 613]

counts of murder: (1) aiding and abetting first-degree murder, Minn.Stat. §§ 609.05, subd. 1, 609.185(a)(1) (2010); (2) aiding and abetting first-degree murder committed for the benefit of a gang, Minn.Stat. §§ 609.05, subd. 1, 609.185(a)(1), Minn.Stat. § 609.229, subd. 2 (2010); (3) aiding and abetting second-degree intentional murder, Minn.Stat. §§ 609.05, subd. 1, 609.19, subd. 1(1); and (4) aiding and abetting second-degree intentional murder committed for the benefit of a gang, Minn.Stat. §§ 609.05, subd. 1, 609.19, subd. 1(1), 609.229, subd. 2.

Brown filed a pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment, claiming the evidence of the June 2008 Richfield shooting incident “tainted” the grand jury because the evidence involved a previous bad act that did not fall within any of the exceptions to Minn. R. Evid. 404(b) (“Evidence of another crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.”). Brown also filed a motion to exclude Spreigl evidence related to the Richfield shooting incident. In response to Brown's motion to exclude evidence related to the Richfield shooting incident, the State argued that the evidence was properly introduced at the grand jury proceedings for two reasons. First, the Richfield shooting was “inextricably intertwined” with Miller's murder. Second, the Richfield shooting evidence fell within an exception to Rule 404(b) because the evidence was offered to prove identity, opportunity, and lack of mistake or accident. The trial court denied Brown's motion to dismiss the indictment, explaining that the Richfield shooting evidence was

appropriately introduced for the stated limited purpose of connecting [Brown] to possession of one of the guns used at the scene of the homicide by way of forensic evidence that linked a shell casing found at the scene of the earlier crime to which the defendant pled guilty to unlawfully possessing a firearm to a shell casing found at the scene of the homicide being considered by the grand jury.

At a subsequent Rasmussen hearing, the trial court discussed the Richfield shooting evidence in the context of whether the evidence would be admissible at trial. The trial court ruled that the Richfield shooting evidence would be admissible at trial because the evidence was “so intertwined with the evidence that the State wants to present and is authorized to present under the evidentiary rules.” (Emphasis added.)

At trial, the court allowed the State to introduce testimony that Brown and Miller were members of rival gangs. C.W. provided lay testimony about the gang to which Brown belonged: the Shotgun Crips. C.W. admitted that he was a former member of the Shotgun Crips and that, in exchange for his testimony in Brown's case, he received a reduced sentence in an unrelated case.² Sergeant Bart Hauge provided expert testimony that generally described Minneapolis gangs, including the Shotgun Crips; their participation in criminal activities; and some rituals and inner workings of gang memberships and hierarchies.

The State also introduced the following evidence. Less than 3 hours before Miller's murder, around 12:30 a.m. on August 29, 2008, Brown and four acquaintances, M.G., D.S., J.H., and T.S., were at a bar in downtown Minneapolis. Following an altercation, bar security personnel escorted

[815 N.W.2d 614]

T.S. out of the bar. A bouncer from a nearby bar testified that two individuals subsequently identified as Brown and T.S. drove away in a colored Mercury Sable which was determined later to be registered to J.H.'s sister. The bouncer explained that he wrote down the license plate number of the vehicle because he believed it belonged to a customer. He also testified that he thought he saw a handgun.

At 3 a.m., witnesses saw M.G., D.S., and J.H. attack Miller in front of a club in downtown Minneapolis. A club security camera captured footage of the initial attack, but the fight soon moved off-camera. During the fight, someone yelled, “You better go get a gun.” Eyewitnesses later heard several gunshots, followed by a pause, and then two close-range gunshots. The witnesses reported seeing an individual, who wore a white undershirt and a large necklace and had his hair in a ponytail, come up the club stairs just before the two close-range gunshots were fired. One witness testified that this same individual shot Miller. After shooting Miller, the individual ran back down the stairs and drove away in a dark-colored Mercury Sable or Ford Taurus. Much of the eyewitness testimony was corroborated by security camera footage from the club. One witness later identified Brown as the individual wearing the white undershirt and large necklace.

In addition to the eyewitness testimony, the State introduced testimony from two former jail mates to whom Brown had confessed committing the crime. Consistent with its pretrial rulings, the trial court allowed the State to introduce evidence that a bullet casing recovered as part of the police investigation of the Richfield shooting incident matched a casing found at the scene of Miller's murder. The State was also allowed to introduce evidence that, following Brown's guilty plea in the Richfield shooting case, he remained in the Hennepin County jail until August 28, 2008. A jail security camera captured footage that showed Brown leaving the jail 12 hours before Miller's murder, with his hair in a ponytail and wearing a large necklace, white tank top, and dark pants. The State used that jail videotape to bolster the testimony of the witness who identified Brown as the person seen on the security camera footage from the club. Finally, the State was permitted to read portions of the transcript of a videotape of Brown pleading guilty to the Richfield shooting incident to provide context for the bullet casings and the jail videotape.

Brown argued at trial that the theory of the murder provided by the State was internally inconsistent. Brown's attorney cross-examined the State's witnesses, many of them extensively, focusing on inconsistencies between testimony given at the scene, the grand jury, and trial. Brown did not testify or call any witnesses in his defense.

Following closing arguments but before giving jury instructions, the trial court ordered that the courtroom door be locked for the duration of jury instructions. In explaining the situation, the judge stated on the record:

For the benefit of those in the back. I am about to begin giving jury instructions. While that is going on the courtroom is going to be locked and people are not going to be allowed to go in and out.

So, if anybody has to leave, now would be the time. You are welcome to s [t]ay. But I just want to make sure that everybody knows that the courtroom is going to...