State v. Carlson

• Decision Date: 26 May 1978
• Docket Number: No. 47713,47713
• Citation: State v. Carlson, 267 N.W.2d 170 (Minn. 1978)
• Parties: STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. David Allen CARLSON, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 170

267 N.W.2d 170

STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v.David Allen CARLSON, Appellant.

No. 47713.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 26, 1978.

Rehearing Denied July 12, 1978.

Syllabus by the Court

1.The questioning which focused police suspicion on defendant occurred in defendant's home, where he was not deprived of his freedom.A Miranda warning was therefore not required during the questioning.

2.On the facts of this case, the investigating officers had probable cause to arrest defendant at his home.

3.Where the state in good faith finds it necessary to entirely consume, for purposes of chemical analysis, the only sample of certain incriminating physical evidence, admission of the test results against defendant at trial does not violate his due process rights.

4.Expert testimony expressing the results of microscopic hair comparison in terms of statistical probabilities was improperly received, but on the facts of this case, the testimony was cumulative and thus not prejudicial.

5.The allegedly inflammatory remarks included in the prosecutor's closing argument played no significant role in the jury's verdict and do not require reversal of the conviction.

Phillip S. Resnick, Minneapolis, for appellant.

Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Robert W. Johnson, County Atty., Edwin M. Wistrand, Asst. County Atty., Anoka, for respondent.

Heard before ROGOSHESKE, TODD, and YETKA, JJ., and considered and decided by the court en banc.

TODD, Justice.

A 12-year-old girl was brutally murdered.She had last been seen in the company of defendant, David Carlson, and another male.As part of their investigation, the police interviewed Carlson at his home.During the questioning, Carlson's evasive answers concerning the origin of a dark-colored stain on his jacket aroused the suspicions of the investigators.When Carlson refused to voluntarily accompany the officers to the police station, he was placed under arrest.Subsequent testing of hair and blood samples linked Carlson to the scene of the killing.Carlson's objection to the introduction of expert testimony concerning these tests was overruled.The jury found Carlson guilty of first-degree murder.We affirm.

On Saturday, March 20, 1976, the body of a 12-year-old girl was found in a wooded area of Anoka County.The body was almost nude, the face was battered in, and the upper portion of the body was covered with bruises and abrasions.Officers investigating the scene of the crime found two foreign pubic hairs stuck to the skin of the deceased in the groin area.Head hairs were found clutched in the victim's hand.The position of the hairs was photographed and the hairs were removed for examination.A small plastic bag containing a quantity of petroleum jelly was also found at the scene.

Later in the day, an autopsy was performed on the body.The examiner was unable to determine whether the victim had been sexually molested.He did find two stains in the groin area which appeared to be petroleum jelly.He also obtained samples of the victim's blood, head hair, and pubic hair.Because the victim's body had been subject to adverse climatic conditions, the examiner was unable to make a reliable estimate of the time of death.

The victim was reported missing by her mother on Friday, March 19, 1976.The mother last saw her daughter on Thursday evening, March 18, when she dropped the girl off at a restaurant at about 6:40 p. m. She last spoke to her daughter on the phone at home 1 hour later.Carlson and his friend called at the victim's home to visit her brother at about 9:15 p. m. on Thursday evening.Carlson's friend told the police that the victim and her sister were at home and that the sister left during their visit.Carlson and his friend left the victim's home alone at about 9:30 p. m. and parted company.

As part of the investigation, two police officers contacted Carlson at his house late in the day on which the body was discovered.Carlson's responses to the officers' questions were guarded and ambiguous.As they were talking, one investigator observed a "dark smear" on the front of the nylon jacket that Carlson was wearing.Carlson's explanations were implausible and sufficiently suspicious to prompt one of the investigators to telephone his superior.He was instructed to bring in Carlson, under arrest if necessary.The officers then requested Carlson to accompany them to the sheriff's office so that the smears on the jacket could be tested.Carlson adamantly refused and was promptly placed under arrest.

After his arrival at the sheriff's office, Carlson was given a Miranda warning.He waived his rights and voluntarily talked to the police, maintaining his story that the stain on his jacket was caused by ketchup.A test was performed and Carlson was advised that the stain was blood.He then told the officers that his dog had been killed and he had carried it, spilling blood on himself in the process.When one of the officers recalled having seen a healthy dog at his residence, Carlson replied that the dog had not actually been killed, but only injured.No additional conversations of any significance were had between Carlson and law enforcement officials on that evening.

After Carlson was questioned, a search warrant was obtained.Pursuant to his warrant, the police obtained samples of Carlson's blood, saliva, head hair, and pubic hair.The police also searched his home, finding an empty petroleum jelly jar, a spot of blood in his bedroom, and a shoe polish rag to which a strand of hair had clung.

All of the physical evidence obtained from the victim, from the scene of the crime, from Carlson, and from his place of residence was submitted to the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) for analysis.

At trial, the state called Mary Ann Strauss, the BCA laboratory analyst who had examined the physical evidence gathered by the police.She testified that the blood from the stain on Carlson's jacket possessed ABO, PGM, and EAP characteristics identical to the victim's blood and that it had been necessary to run the blood test twice to ensure the reliability of the results.¹Strauss also stated that less than 1 percent of the population would have blood with the same combination of characteristics as that of the murder victim.²

The blood testing completely consumed the stain from Carlson's jacket.Carlson was not given notice of this fact, but there is no evidence that the tests were conducted in a manner expressly calculated to exhaust the available evidence.

Strauss also conducted a microscopic comparison of the foreign hairs found on the victim with hairs taken from Carlson's person.She testified that Carlson's pubic hair was similar to the two pubic hairs found stuck to the victim in all 15 categories of microscopic comparison.Foreign head hairs found on the victim were likewise compared to Carlson's and also proved to be similar in all 15 typing characteristics.Finally, the head hair found in Carlson's bedroom on the shoe polish rag was similar to the victim's hair in all 15 categories.All of the hairs tested were found to be dissimilar to the hair of the male who had accompanied Carlson to the victim's home on Thursday evening, March 18.

The state also called a second expert on comparative microscopy, Barry Gaudette of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.Gaudette conducted the same comparisons made by Strauss, utilizing 26, rather than 15, categories of comparison.His results were the same as Strauss'.The hairs compared were found to be similar in all 26 characteristics and dissimilar in none.Gaudette also testified that based on his own scientific studies, ³ there was a 1-in-800 chance that the pubic hairs stuck to the victim were not Carlson's and a 1-in-4,500 chance that the head hairs found on the victim were not Carlson's.

Defense counsel objected to the testimony of each of the state's experts, but the trial court allowed all three to testify.Carlson did not take the stand on his own behalf.The jury returned a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree, and the trial court imposed the mandatory life sentence.

Carlson raises the following issues on this appeal:

(1) Was a Miranda warning required when the police officers' suspicion began to focus on Carlson during the questioning at his home?

(2) Was there probable cause for Carlson's arrest?

(3) Are the results of a blood analysis admissible when the testing procedure completely exhausts the available sample?

(4) May expert witnesses express their findings in terms of mathematical probabilities?

(5) Were the remarks of the prosecutor in his closing argument constitutionally improper and inflammatory?

1.The evidence seems clear that when the police investigators went to Carlson's house to question him concerning his contact with the victim, the police had focused no suspicion upon Carlson whatsoever.At that time, the officers had already talked to Carlson's friend, obtained a statement from him, and departed.A similar interview was no doubt anticipated with Carlson.As the conversation developed, however, Carlson's improbable explanation for the stain on his jacket did cause the officers to focus upon him as a possible suspect.In site of the rapidly developing suspicion, Carlson was not given a Miranda warning until after he had been placed under arrest and had been taken to the police station.

On appeal, Carlson argues that he was entitled to a Miranda warning when the suspicion of the investigating officers began to focus on him.In light of this court's recent decision in State v. Ousley, Minn., 254 N.W.2d 73, 74(1977), Carlson's position is without merit:

" * * * (T)he test in determining the need for a Miranda warning is not whether the interrogation has coercive aspects to it or whether the person being interrogated is a suspect, but whether the person is in custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.Here, defe...