State v. Chavez-Nelson
| Decision Date | 06 July 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. A15–0251.,A15–0251. |
| Citation | 882 N.W.2d 579 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Shavelle Oscar CHAVEZ–NELSON, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Saint Paul, MN; and James C. Backstrom, Dakota County Attorney, Kathryn M. Keena, Assistant County Attorney, Hastings, MN, for respondent.
Charles F. Clippert, Saint Paul, MN, for appellant.
ANDERSON
, Justice.
Following a jury trial, appellant Shavelle Oscar Chavez–Nelson was found guilty of first-degree premeditated murder and second-degree intentional murder for the shooting death of Palagor Obang Jobi. The district court convicted Chavez–Nelson of first-degree premeditated murder and sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of release. Chavez–Nelson now appeals his conviction directly to our court. On appeal, Chavez–Nelson claims, among other arguments, that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated; that the district court committed errors that, either individually or taken together, denied him a fair trial; and that the district court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of first-degree manslaughter. Because none of Chavez–Nelson's claims entitles him to relief, we affirm.
At approximately 11:30 p.m. on September 21, 2013, Jobi went to Nina's Bar and Grill in Burnsville with two of his cousins, W.T. and M.T.; a friend, O.C.; and O.C.'s uncle. Shortly before 1:00 a.m. on September 22, 2013, Chavez–Nelson arrived at Nina's with his girlfriend, A.C., and another woman. Chavez–Nelson and the two women arrived in A.C.'s white Ford Fusion.
Just before 2:00 a.m., Jobi left the bar and stood outside the entrance to smoke a cigarette. A short time later, Chavez–Nelson and A.C. left Nina's so that A.C. could smoke a cigarette. During this time, A.C. stood on the sidewalk near Chavez–Nelson.
Several minutes later, Jobi told A.C. how beautiful she looked. Chavez–Nelson overheard the comment, became angry, and approached Jobi. Chavez–Nelson confronted Jobi and asked Jobi why he was talking to Chavez–Nelson's girlfriend. Jobi responded by stating something to the effect of, “If she's your girlfriend, why is she standing alone?” W.T. left Nina's at this time, observed the confrontation, and attempted to defuse the situation. Chavez–Nelson then walked down the sidewalk and stood with another group of people approximately 10 feet away.
After a short time, Chavez–Nelson left the group and walked toward Jobi. A.C. grabbed Chavez–Nelson by his arm and attempted to stop him from walking away, but Chavez–Nelson shook her off and continued to walk toward Jobi. Jobi then walked toward Chavez–Nelson. Chavez–Nelson and Jobi stood “squared up” on the sidewalk and argued with one another. Jobi then punched Chavez–Nelson in the face. After the punch, Chavez–Nelson spun away from Jobi and ended up standing on the sidewalk near the driver's side headlight of an SUV that was parked in front of Nina's.
A witness, R.C., who owned the SUV, was walking toward her car and unlocked it remotely. When R.C. opened her door, Chavez–Nelson pulled a gun out of his waistband and started shooting. Chavez–Nelson fired either two or three shots at Jobi, all of which missed. Jobi then ran along the passenger side and around the back of R.C.'s SUV.
When the shooting started, R.C. got into her car and hid. She testified that she saw someone run down the passenger side of her SUV. R.C. also testified that her SUV was shaking and that she assumed there was a struggle on the driver's side of her vehicle. R.C. then heard several additional shots and saw Jobi fall to the ground.
R.C. testified that there was a short pause between volleys as Jobi ran around her SUV and that there may have been a scuffle on the driver's side of her SUV in between the volleys. A.C. testified that there was an initial volley of two to three shots, followed by a short pause of three to four seconds, and then a second volley of shots. W.T. testified that once the shooting began, Chavez–Nelson fired between five and six shots, one after the other.1
W.T. dove to the ground on the passenger side of the SUV when the shooting started. After the shooting was over, W.T. ran around the SUV and saw Chavez–Nelson standing over Jobi, pointing a gun down at Jobi's body. W.T. tackled Chavez–Nelson and struggled with him. At some point during the struggle, the gun was fired again, and W.T. was able to slap the gun out of Chavez–Nelson's hand and onto the pavement. An unidentified individual then pulled W.T. off of Chavez–Nelson and told W.T. to let Chavez–Nelson go. Chavez–Nelson got up, picked up the gun, threatened M.T. and other bystanders with the gun, and fled the scene in A.C.'s vehicle.
When the police arrived, Jobi was lying face-down on the driver's side of R.C.'s SUV in a pool of his own blood. Jobi was declared dead at the scene. In all, the crime-scene investigators determined that at least nine shots were fired. One bullet and one bullet fragment were located on the parking lot pavement directly under Jobi's head. The crime scene investigator identified four impact points from the bullets in the asphalt surface of the parking lot under Jobi's head.
Following an autopsy of Jobi's body, the medical examiner determined that Jobi had suffered eight gunshot wounds
that were the cause of death. The medical examiner also determined that Jobi had a blood alcohol content of .26. Two of the gunshot wounds, one to the hip and one to the forehead, were front entry wounds. The medical examiner found six other entry wounds to the back of Jobi's body. Four of the back entry wounds were to Jobi's head, one was to his back just below his neck, and one was to his left shoulder.
Four of the back entry wounds
, including three of the wounds to the back of Jobi's head, were compatible with a “shored wound.” The medical examiner testified that the shored wounds were consistent with Jobi's body being in direct contact with the parking lot pavement at the time the bullets left his body. The prosecution argued that the trajectory of the back entry wounds and the fact that several of the back entry wounds were shored wounds indicated that Chavez–Nelson stood over Jobi's body when firing the six shots that produced back entry wounds. The medical examiner testified that the physical evidence was consistent with such a scenario, but also noted that he could not be certain that Jobi was on the ground when the back entry wounds were inflicted. The medical examiner was also unable to specify the chronological order of the gunshot wounds.
After viewing a photo lineup, both M.T. and R.C. identified Chavez–Nelson as the shooter. Further investigation revealed the relationship between A.C. and Chavez–Nelson. Subsequently, the police began performing surveillance on A.C.'s residence in Rosemount. During the surveillance, a police officer observed Chavez–Nelson getting into A.C.'s white Ford Fusion and driving it out of A.C.'s townhome complex. A fully marked squad car attempted to stop Chavez–Nelson, who initially pulled over, but then sped away, leading the police on a high-speed chase through a residential area.
Ultimately, Chavez–Nelson abandoned the vehicle and was apprehended on foot. A search of the area near where Chavez–Nelson was arrested revealed a 9–millimeter pistol, a magazine for a pistol, and a baseball cap. The pistol and magazine were submitted to the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) lab for analysis. Testing by the BCA determined that all nine of the cartridge casings recovered from the scene of Jobi's shooting came from the pistol recovered at the scene of Chavez–Nelson's arrest. All of the bullets or bullet fragments recovered from the crime scene and autopsy were either fired by the pistol recovered at Chavez–Nelson's arrest or were not suitable for testing.
The BCA also conducted DNA testing on several items recovered from the crime scene and the scene of Chavez–Nelson's arrest. Blood found on the outside of a black ice-scraper mitten recovered from the crime scene matched Jobi's DNA profile and did not match Chavez–Nelson's or A.C.'s DNA profiles.
The pistol recovered from the scene of Chavez–Nelson's arrest was also tested for DNA. A DNA sample recovered from the grip of the pistol contained a mixture of four or more individuals. Jobi and A.C. were both excluded as contributors, but Chavez–Nelson could not be. A DNA profile obtained from the trigger was a mixture of three or more individuals. Jobi and A.C. were excluded as contributors, but Chavez–Nelson could not be. Finally, a DNA profile obtained from the slide and magazine release was a mixture of four or more individuals. A.C. was excluded as a contributor, but Chavez–Nelson and Jobi could not be.
Chavez–Nelson was initially charged by complaint with second-degree intentional murder. See Minn.Stat. § 609.19, subd. 1(1) (2014)
. On October 24, 2013, a grand jury indicted Chavez–Nelson on charges of first-degree premeditated murder, see Minn.Stat. § 609.185(a)(1) (2014), and second-degree intentional murder, see Minn.Stat. § 609.19, subd. 1(1). After a jury trial, Chavez–Nelson was found guilty of all counts and sentenced to life in prison for the first-degree murder conviction. This appeal followed.
Chavez–Nelson raises a number of claims on appeal. In a brief submitted by his counsel, Chavez–Nelson argues that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel; that the district court made three evidentiary errors that, either individually or cumulatively, deprived him of a fair trial; and that the district court committed reversible error by declining to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of first-degree heat-of-passion manslaughter. Chavez–Nelson raises a variety of other claims in a pro se supplemental brief. We address the claims in Chavez–Nelson's principal brief first, followed by the claims in his pro se supplemental brief.2
Chavez–Nelson first claims that the district court deprived him...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chavez-Nelson v. State
...by declining to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of first-degree heat-of-passion manslaughter. State v. Chavez-Nelson , 882 N.W.2d 579, 584 (Minn. 2016). Chavez-Nelson also raised a variety of other claims in a pro se supplemental brief. Id. Relevant here, Chavez-Nelson argu......
-
Chavez-Nelson v. Governor Tim Walz & Comm'r of Corr. Paul Schnell
...his conviction after rejecting numerous arguments made by his attorney and by Chavez-Nelson himself in a pro se brief. State v. Chavez-Nelson, 882 N.W.2d 579 (Minn. 2016). Chavez-Nelson is now seeking a writ ofhabeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Chavez-Nelson also has two other motions pe......
-
Oppel v. State
...pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 128.05, asking this court to consider State v. Chavez-Nelson in support of his appeal. 882 N.W.2d 579 (Minn. 2016). In Chavez-Nelson, the supreme court held a defendant was entitled to have advisory counsel assume full representation during his murder trial......
-
State v. Galvan
...murder and first-degree premeditated murder and finds the defendant guilty of first-degree premeditated murder. State v. Chavez-Nelson , 882 N.W.2d 579, 591 (Minn. 2016) ; Cooper v. State , 745 N.W.2d 188, 194 (Minn. 2008). This case is analogous to Cooper and Chavez-Nelson . The district c......