State v. Carlson, 81-133.

• Decision Date: 23 December 1982
• Docket Number: No. 81-133.,81-133.
• Citation: State v. Carlson, 328 N.W.2d 690 (Minn. 1982)
• Parties: STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Donald Manfred CARLSON, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

328 N.W.2d 690 (1982)

STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v.Donald Manfred CARLSON, Appellant.

No. 81-133.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

December 23, 1982.

C. Paul Jones, Public Defender, and Kathy King, Asst. Public Defender, Minneapolis, for appellant.

Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Robert W. Johnson, County Atty., and J. Diane Savage, Asst. County Atty., Anoka, for respondent.

Considered and decided by the court en banc without oral argument.

PETERSON, Justice.

Defendant, Donald Manfred Carlson, was convicted of second-degree murder of his wife, of third-degree felony murder of his son, and of aggravated assault on his sister-in-law.That defendant shot and killed his son and his wife and shot and wounded his sister-in-law is undisputed.On appeal, defendant raises issues that involve his insanity defense and alleged errors at trial.

Defendant and Joan Nelson met as children and dated as teenagers.Joan married Burke Nelson(no relation) in 1953.In 1954, defendant married another woman, and they had two daughters.At the same time, defendant and Joan continued an intimate relationship; in 1960, while still married to Nelson, Joan had a son, Blake, by defendant.In 1972, Joan divorced Nelson, and she and Blake moved in with defendant.Joan and defendant were married in 1973.Blake had been informed of his parentage when he was about 10 years old.Defendant wished to adopt Blake, but Blake did not wish to be adopted.By May 1978, Blake did not want to see defendant.

Joan and Blake left defendant in March 1978 and went to live with Joan's parents.Joan filed for divorce, which would have been final 1 week after the shooting, and obtained a restraining order to keep defendant away.Defendant did not favor the divorce and about 10 days before the shooting violently pulled Joan out of a car in which she was riding so he could talk about it.

Defendant's relationship to Blake was seldom good.He believed Joan did not discipline Blake and felt she interfered with his attempts to do so.On one occasion Blake parked his car in the driveway; defendant did not like it and used his own car to push Blake's car sideways off the driveway.Another time, Blake damaged defendant's stereo.Defendant felt it was done deliberately; he took a meat cleaver and smashed the windows in Blake's car.Defendant told numerous persons he believed Joan and Blake were having an incestuous relationship and told the same story to the experts who examined him.Between 1974 and 1978, there were other incidents, which need not be recounted here, of unusual behavior by defendant.

The shootings occurred about 9 p.m. on August 7, 1978.There was extensive testimony as to how defendant spent that day.Defendant resided in a house which he shared with John Fosse and Fosse's two sons and which was located only a few houses away from a cabin owned by Glenn and Gloria Nelson, Joan's brother and sister-in-law.At 11 a.m., defendant telephoned a bank trust officer.He was angry with Joan because he felt she had taken money, which was his, from a bank account.However, the trust officer testified that defendant"was rational and intelligent and seemed to be completely in control of his emotions."

At 5 p.m., defendant called a neighbor and told her he believed Joan had a boyfriend and that he believed Joan might go back to her ex-husband.About 7 p.m., as Fosse was leaving the house, defendant was watching Joan, who was at the Nelson cabin, with his binoculars; he stated, "Yes, Joan's down there again.Why doesn't she leave me alone?"

Defendant then opened a fifth of 160-proof vodka and began drinking "screwdrivers."By 9 p.m., he had nearly consumed the whole fifth.His blood alcohol level was later estimated to have been 0.135.As he drank, defendant watched the Nelsons through the binoculars.They and Joan were preparing a late dinner for themselves, their children (including Blake), and several teenage friends.According to a taped statement which defendant later gave to police investigators, defendant began to think about Blake and his "absolute defiance," and "the more I watched, the madder I got."He also remembered the restraining order Joan obtained against him.In his words, "I felt bad, I felt hurt, and I felt defiance, and I thought, you know, I just got, you know, hurt and mad."Defendant took a shotgun and revolver, loaded them, and put more shells in his pockets.He drove to a driveway next to the Nelsons and parked there so that no one would see him.

He then walked to the screen porch, saw Blake, and pointed the gun at Blake's head, still feeling "hurt and defiance."Apparently no one saw defendant until he fired the shotgun.The first shot hit Blake squarely in the neck, and he died within minutes.As Joan ran to Blake, defendant fired a second shot, which hit her in the neck, severing her spinal cord.A third shot hit a chair behind her.All three shots were fired within 5 seconds.The persons in the house fled in several directions; Gloria Nelson hid in the kitchen.Defendant dropped the shotgun on the lawn and entered the room.He shot Joan in the back of the head with the revolver from a distance of 2 feet.The telephone rang in the kitchen next to Gloria Nelson; it was a neighbor who had heard the shots.Gloria told her to call ambulances.As Gloria hung up, defendant saw her and fired twice, hitting her in the left chest and shoulder.He then left the house.

While the police were en route to the scene, defendant flagged them down, pointed to the scene, and told them, "There's a crazy black man with a shotgun who just shot two people.He's crazy.You've got to get him."Although he smelled slightly of alcohol, he appeared normal to the officers, who proceeded to the house, where Glenn Nelson told them defendant fired the shots.The police took defendant into custody the following morning.He entered pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of mental illness to all charges.

1.Appellant's major attack on the verdict is that there was not sufficient evidence to support the jury's rejection of the mental illness defense.This contention fails in light of the established rule that defendant bears the burden of proving mental illness.State v. Carpenter,282 N.W.2d 910, 914(Minn.1979).

At trial, in addition to the lay witness testimony described above, the defense called three expert witnesses to testify as to defendant's mental state: Dr. Robert Jeub interpreted two electroencephalograms (EEG's), one performed in the usual manner and one performed after defendant had ingested 6 ounces of vodka.Results of the first EEG were normal.The alcohol-activated EEG showed a "mitten pattern," which has been found in "a certain percentage of patients who suffer mental illness."Although Dr. Jeub stated that the mitten pattern is "commonly associated" with mental illness, he admitted, on cross-examination, that it is not always so associated.He did not express any conclusions as to whether defendant was M'Naghten mentally ill.

Mr. Don Anderson, a clinical psychologist, gave several psychological tests to defendant.Mr. Anderson concluded that defendant was suffering some effects of alcohol abuse, that he was somewhat delusional, and that he was mentally ill from the time he believed his wife and son engaged in incest.Mr. Anderson believed defendant was not aware of the nature of his act and did not consider the rightness or wrongness of the act.He did note that defendant recalled his actions before and after the shootings in substantial detail.

Finally, Dr. Carl Schwartz, a psychiatrist, testified that defendant was "totally psychotic," based on his delusions of being a Marine on a mission.Dr. Schwartz described defendant with these words: "paranoid loser,""perfectionist,""obsessive compulsive,""deep-seated inferiority complex."As to the M'Naghten test, defendant knew that he had a gun and bullets and was killing, but he did not consider his act to be murder."He did not believe it was wrong.He did not have the ability to know the difference, because of his mental condition at the time."

On rebuttal, the prosecution called four expert witnesses.The first expert witness was Dr. Bruce Norback, a neurologist.He had interpreted 18,000-20,000 EEG's but had never seen an alcohol-activated EEG.In his view, both EEG's were normal, given the effects of some subsequent drowsiness due to alcohol ingestion.Dr. Norback did not discuss M'Naghten.

Dr. Dennis Philander, a psychiatrist, testified that defendant's actions were not controlled by any delusions.Dr. Philander described defendant as "obsessive, compulsive,""perfectionist," and "episode alcoholic," and "in a state of depression."According to Dr. Philander, "Defendant knew full well what he was doing and the effect it would have on the intended victims.Now, with regard to the wrongfulness of his conduct, it would appear that defendant had a very definite legal, as well as moral appreciation of how wrong it was what he had done."The latter conclusion was bolstered by noting that defendant stated the act was a "no-no" and took steps to avoid apprehension.

Dr. Carl Malmquist, a psychiatrist, testified that defendant had abused alcohol for at least 20 years, was intoxicated on the night of the shootings, and suffered from a narcissistic personality disorder which exaggerated his need for approval and self-esteem.Defendant intended to kill himself along with his wife; he thought he would be killed in a shootout with deputies.Defendant did know the nature of his acts and their consequences but probably never considered their rightness or wrongness.

Finally, the prosecution called Dr. Terry Zuehlke, a clinical psychologist, who testified as to numerous psychological tests administered to defendant.Dr. Zuehlke diagnosed defendant as a "paranoid personality," not mentally ill.He concluded that defendant"knew what he was doing, and he knew that it was wrong."...