State v. Cain, No. A05-2224 (MN 3/14/2006)
| Decision Date | 14 March 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. A05-2224.,A05-2224. |
| Parties | State of Minnesota, Appellant, v. Mark James Cain, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from the District Court, Washington County, File No. K7053576.
Mike Hatch, Attorney General, and Doug Johnson, Washington County Attorney, Robert Molstad, Assistant County Attorney, (for appellant).
Andrew S. Birrell, Birrell & Newmark, Ltd., (for respondent).
Considered and decided by Kalitowski, Presiding Judge; Willis, Judge; and Stoneburner, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
The state appeals a pretrial order suppressing a gun and two statements as fruits of an illegal search and seizure that occurred after respondent confronted young people who were setting off fireworks on or near his property. Because respondent voluntarily led the police to the gun, was not in custody when he made the first statement, and voluntarily made the second statement after a Miranda warning, we reverse.
David Kirchoffner reported to sheriff's deputies that while he was setting off fireworks with friends earlier that evening, a man walked out of the woods, grabbed him, and held a gun to his head. Kirchoffner said that the unidentified man told him, "You've got a loaded gun in your face." Kirchoffner and a witness described the gun and said it had a flashlight and laser attached. They also described the assailant.
The two deputies who interviewed Kirchoffner, Ackerknecht, and Webb then went to respondent Mark Cain's home, knowing that someone at respondent's address had, that same evening, called to complain about juveniles drinking on his property and because Kirchoffner's license plate matched the plate number given by the caller as belonging to the alleged trespassers. Deputy Ackerknecht testified that they went to respondent's home with the dual purpose of investigating his complaint and discussing the assault that Kirchoffner had reported.
Respondent invited the deputies into his residence. The deputies did not inform him that his conversation with them was being recorded. The deputies verified that respondent had called them, and, when respondent offered to show them where the trespassers had been, the deputies told him that they should "get your side of the story first." The deputies did not inform respondent that they were also there to investigate a reported assault.
Respondent described confronting individuals who were setting off fireworks near his home. He said one young man held a large firework in a threatening manner and that this youth had initiated a physical confrontation by pushing respondent. Respondent told the deputies that he had his flashlight during this confrontation. The flashlight was lying on a kitchen table. Respondent described how the flashlight could be mounted to a .45 pistol.
At this point, respondent said, "Excuse me I'm going to get some water." Respondent walked toward his kitchen faucet but then started to go upstairs. The district court found that respondent was "stopped by the deputies," quoting Ackerknecht's testimony that The deputy then asked where the gun was located. Respondent said it was in his bedroom closet and described the gun for the deputies. The deputies asked if they could look at the gun, and respondent replied that his wife was sleeping in the room where the gun was located but that he would be "happy" to bring it to the deputies. A deputy told respondent that they would prefer if he not handle the gun himself. Respondent then led the deputies to the bedroom where his wife was sleeping, walked to a closet, and pointed to a gun in the closet.
The deputies checked the gun for ammunition and seized it. The deputies then informed respondent that a young man had reported being assaulted with a similar handgun that night. Respondent then acknowledged that during the confrontation he held the flashlight "like this" and told the young man that he had a gun. The deputies arrested respondent.
The next morning, respondent gave a recorded statement to a different deputy. Respondent was read a Miranda warning at the beginning of the interview and immediately agreed to talk to the deputy. Respondent described the events and acknowledged that he had the gun during the confrontation. Respondent stated that he only took the gun because he needed the attached flashlight to walk through the woods. Respondent stated that he held the flashlight up and that Kirchoffner would have seen the gun. Respondent could not recall stating to Kirchoffner that the gun was loaded but indicated that he wanted Kirchoffner to think that the gun was loaded.
The district court granted respondent's motion to suppress the gun and all of respondent's statements made in his home after the point at which respondent was stopped from going upstairs, on the ground that respondent was seized and in custody at that point. The court found that part of the taped statement (after respondent was "seized and in custody") as well as the gun itself, were inadmissible because "any further interrogation of [respondent] and seizure of evidence was subject to the requirements of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Sections 7 & 10, of the Minnesota Constitution." Additionally, the court suppressed respondent's statement made the day after his arrest, concluding it was "derivative of [respondent's] illegal seizure and is the tainted fruit of the poisonous tree." This appeal followed.
In an appeal from a district court's order suppressing evidence when the facts are not in dispute, we may independently review the facts and determine as a matter of law whether the district court erred in suppressing the evidence. State v. Harris, 590 N.W.2d 90, 98 (Minn. 1999).
At the state's request, an appellate court will reverse a pretrial order of the district court if "the state demonstrates clearly and unequivocally that the trial court has erred in its judgment and that, unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial." State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157, 159 (Minn. 1977). Critical impact exists "not only in those cases where the lack of the suppressed evidence completely destroys the state's case, but also in those cases where the lack of the suppressed evidence significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution." State v. Kim, 398 N.W.2d 544, 551 (Minn. 1987). The state need not demonstrate that suppression has rendered the remaining evidence insufficient as a matter of law or so weak that prosecution is impossible. Id. at 550-51.
The state asserts that, because possession of a dangerous weapon is an essential element of second-degree assault, the charged offense, suppression of respondent's statements, and the gun will have a critical impact. Respondent contends that the critical-impact test is not met because the state can prove possession of a gun by presenting other available evidence, such as testimony from the witness and victim. Respondent argues that respondent's statements and the gun are "merely cumulative . . . not critical" evidence.
To properly analyze critical impact, we examine all other admissible evidence available to the state to determine the effect of the absence of the suppressed evidence. State v. Zanter, 535 N.W.2d 624, 630-31 (Minn. 1995). And we
examine the inherent qualities of the suppressed evidence itself, its relevance and probative force, its chronological proximity to the alleged crime, its effect in filling gaps in the evidence viewed as a whole, its quality as a perspective of events different than those otherwise available, its clarity and amount of detail and its origin. Suppressed evidence particularly unique in nature and quality is more likely to meet the critical impact test.
In re Welfare of L.E.P., 594 N.W.2d 163, 168 (Minn. 1999) (citation omitted).
"[A] conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness." State v. Hill, 285 Minn. 518, 518, 172 N.W.2d 406, 407 (1969). In this case, the state has two witnesses who will testify that they observed respondent holding a gun and who can described the gun in detail. The state can also introduce the flashlight, respondent's acknowledgement that he had the flashlight during the confrontation, and his statement that the flashlight could be attached to a gun. That evidence tends to corroborate the witnesses' claims that appellant had a gun with a flashlight attached to it. We conclude that it would not be impossible for the state to obtain a conviction of the charged offense even if respondent's statements and the gun are suppressed. But just because a conviction is possible does not mean that suppression does not have a critical impact on the state's case.
This court has held that suppression of corroborating evidence that "may assist the jury in determining credibility" created a critical impact on the state's case in a case in which the only other evidence of a crime was the victim's testimony. State v. Hanson, 355N.W.2d 328, 329 (Minn. App. 1984) (). In the context of child-sexual-abuse cases, the supreme court has also indicated that suppression of a defendant's confession will significantly reduce the likelihood of a successful prosecution. State v. Ronnebaum, 449 N.W.2d 722, 724 (Minn. 1990). Here, the gun and respondent's statements confessing to having the gun and threatening Kirchoffner with the gun would prevent respondent from discrediting...
To continue reading
Request your trial