State v. Edwards, No. A04-2396.

Citation717 N.W.2d 405
Decision Date13 July 2006
Docket NumberNo. A04-2396.
PartiesSTATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Brian Keith EDWARDS, Appellant.
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota (US)

John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Davi Elstan Forte Axelson, Assistant Public Defender, Minneapolis MN, for Appellant.

Mike Hatch, Attorney General—Criminal, St. Paul, MN, Amy Klobuchar, Hennepin County Attorney, Linda M. Freyer, Assistant County Attorney, Minneapolis, MN, for Respondent.

Heard, considered, and decided by the court en banc.

OPINION

ANDERSON, RUSSELL A., Chief Justice.

Appellant Brian Keith Edwards appeals from the judgment of his conviction of first-degree murder, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.185(a)(3) (2004), in connection with the shooting death of Timothy Oliver. He argues that he was denied a fair trial by the admission of opinion testimony on a legal issue and by the submission of a jury instruction on an aggressor's right to claim self-defense. We affirm.

In the early morning hours of January 28, 2004, Oliver was shot and killed in an exchange of gunfire with Edwards in the 2100 block of Elliot Avenue in South Minneapolis. Edwards was seated in the driver's seat of a Dodge Caravan and Oliver was outside the vehicle by the front passenger window. Witnesses identified Edwards as the shooter. Police arrested and questioned Edwards several hours later. Edwards initially told the police that he was home asleep at the time of the shooting. Then he said he was in the back seat of the van and that the driver, somebody named "D," was the shooter. Eventually, Edwards admitted he shot Oliver but told the police that Oliver shot first.

Edwards was indicted by grand jury for first-degree premeditated murder, Minn. Stat. § 609.185(a)(1) (2004), and intentional drive-by-shooting murder, Minn.Stat. § 609.185(a)(3). At trial, the owner of the Dodge Caravan, Johnny Joshua, testified that he agreed to let Edwards use his vehicle in exchange for some crack cocaine. Later on, they picked up Edwards' fianceé Satociaree Wilson and a friend, Roshawn Douglas. Wilson sat in the front passenger seat, Douglas in the second-row bench seat, and Joshua in the third-row bench seat. When Edwards drove down Franklin Avenue, he passed Cordale Moore and Oliver, who were walking to a friend's house nearby. Wilson pointed them out to Edwards and identified Oliver as someone who had threatened to shoot her. Moore testified that Edwards "mean mugged" them (gave them an intimidating glance) and made a "wild right" at the corner. When Moore and Oliver reached the next block, Moore saw the van parked there, as though Edwards was watching them.

At 21st and Chicago, Oliver and Moore got into David Porter's Ford Crown Victoria. Moore was in the front passenger seat and Oliver was in the back seat next to his aunt, Alice Jones. Eventually, the two vehicles met near the intersection of 21st and Elliot and stopped next to each other, at which point Edwards and Oliver exchanged words. The van owner heard Edwards say, in an urgent or angry voice, that he needed to talk to Oliver. Moore, who was in the Crown Victoria, heard Edwards speak in a normal voice. Jones, also in the Crown Victoria, heard Edwards say "something about spraying the mothers." Edwards then drove the van up Elliot and made a U-turn. He had a gun on his lap. The van owner saw Edwards put on his gloves; and he said, "Please don't do this in my car."1

Moore and Jones (occupants of the Crown Victoria) and the van owner said that Porter backed the Crown Victoria into a driveway. Oliver got out of the Crown Victoria and walked to Moore's Buick Regal that was parked on the street. He popped the hood, briefly went under the hood and closed it. Meanwhile, Edwards stopped the van next to the Buick Regal and said something like, "hurry up man, I need to talk to you" or yelled "come on." None of the witnesses saw anything in Oliver's hands as he approached the passenger side of the van. The van owner said that after a short conversation, Oliver stepped back, Edwards raised his gun, leaned over Wilson and fired at Oliver. Moore and Jones (who were in the Crown Victoria) said that after Edwards started shooting, Oliver stumbled back, pulled out a gun and returned fire as the van sped off. Jones testified that the van had no problem leaving the area. Moore, Porter and Jones picked Oliver up, placed him in the Crown Victoria and drove to the Hennepin County Medical Center where Oliver was pronounced dead. The cause of death was a gunshot wound to the chest.

One of the bullets penetrated the front passenger door of the van, wounding Wilson in the ankle. The van owner said that Edwards drove to St. Paul where they dropped Wilson off at a hospital. He said that Edwards worked out a story for Wilson to tell the police.

Other evidence at trial related to the homicide investigation during which the police recovered 11 discharged cartridge casings in the area of the shooting and a SigSauer 9 millimeter semiautomatic handgun, with a 13-plus-one capacity, from the Crown Victoria. The magazine was empty. The police found a .380 Lorcin semiautomatic handgun, with a 14-plus-one capacity, lodged in a couch during the execution of a search warrant at Edwards' apartment in St. Paul. The chamber was empty and the magazine contained 11 rounds. The police also located and processed the van, which had 12 bullet holes in the right front passenger door, one of which was just under the front passenger window and another in the area of the door handle. The majority of the bullet holes were in the lower half of the door. The forensic evidence indicated that the van was in motion when the "high-up" bullets struck the vehicle and were unlikely to hit the van's occupants. Photographs of the crime scene indicated that the street had been plowed and pavement exposed.

Edwards testified on his own behalf and asserted that he acted in self-defense. He said that he shared an apartment in St. Paul with Wilson, that he sold drugs in South Minneapolis for a living and that Wilson sold drugs on the street for him. He said that some people were upset that he was cutting into their drug trade, that Wilson told him Oliver had been shooting at her and the word on the street was that Oliver wanted to shoot him, too.

Edwards said that he took a bus from St. Paul to the area in South Minneapolis where he normally sold his drugs, "rented" Joshua's van and drove around the area trying to sell his drugs. It was cold, and he was wearing gloves the whole night. As was his routine, he had his gun on his lap with a bullet in the chamber. He explained that he had been the victim of a carjacking and had been seriously injured by gunfire, which caused permanent injury to his stomach and the loss of one leg. He said that, because of that experience and the fact that he carries large sums of cash, he always had a gun on his lap when he was in a motor vehicle.

Edwards disputed that he "mean mugged" or cast a threatening glance at Moore and Oliver, testifying instead that he stopped and asked Oliver if he could speak with him. Later, when the two vehicles stopped next to each other, Edwards again asked to speak with Oliver; and Oliver agreed. Edwards said that Oliver first came up to the front passenger window of the van, where Wilson was seated, said that he was going to put his gun away, walked over to the Buick Regal, went under the hood, closed it and returned to the van. Edwards asked Oliver why he (Oliver) wanted to shoot Wilson and him (Edwards). He then heard the sound of a gun being charged (which he acknowledged required the use of both hands), "grabbed [his own] gun, did like this (indicating) and pulled [the] trigger." He stepped on the accelerator but his tires spun until the van jumped and he could drive off. Edwards said Oliver fired the first shot.

Edwards testified that he did not leave when he heard the sound of the gun being charged because he was afraid Oliver would shoot him in the back of his head. He admitted that he lied to the police but explained that he did not trust them. He acknowledged that he told the police that "[i]t was self-defense," that he was trying to resolve "this issue" and that "[y]ou would not want to see your girlfriend out there getting hurt if she's making money for you, now, would you?"

The jury returned a verdict of not guilty of first-degree premeditated murder but guilty of first-degree intentional murder while committing a drive-by shooting. Judgment of conviction was entered and Edwards was sentenced to life in prison. This appeal followed.

I.

Edwards' first claim of error is the admission of testimony by William James, a forensic scientist with the Minneapolis Police Department. James testified that he used "trajectory rods" (long wooden dowels) to connect the locations where each of Oliver's bullets passed through two surfaces of the van that Edwards was driving. James testified that he could determine (1) "somewhat the distance, possibly, that somebody was standing from the vehicle," (2) "whether or not the vehicle or the person, the shooter was in motion," and (3) the "approximate angle and direction of those fired bullets."

The disputed testimony arose on redirect examination by the state:

Q: Were any of those—well, and if the person who was firing the bullets, based on your analysis and you [sic] observations and your training, the person firing those bullets into the van were wanting to strike either the front passenger or the driver, were any of those bullets in the direction or the angle would be even remotely likely to hit those two individuals?

[Defense Attorney]: Objection, Your Honor. Calls for speculation. Lack of foundation.

[The Court]: Overruled. You can answer, if you can.

A: If I was intent on shooting the passenger or the driver, the bullets would be much higher, the bullet strikes would be much higher. They would be at least pointed towards, you know, the level of the window.

Because James...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • State v. Carridine
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • 9 de maio de 2012
    ...or [Guffie] was the initial aggressor inside the bar, outside the bar, at the point of contact ... with one another at the vehicle.” In State v. Edwards, we interpreted “began or induced the incident” 5 to contemplate conduct that is “a good deal greater than mere conversation” but did not ......
  • State v. Anderson
    • United States
    • Minnesota Court of Appeals
    • 9 de maio de 2011
    ...in the driver's seat of her minivan when the fight between M.B. and L.E. began, she could have driven to safety. See State v. Edwards, 717 N.W.2d 405, 413 (Minn. 2006) (holding that guilty verdict reflected that elements of self-defense were not satisfied when defendant-shooter was driving ......
  • State v. Pollard
    • United States
    • Minnesota Court of Appeals
    • 10 de julho de 2017
    ...election to kill must have been such as a reasonable man would have made in light of the danger to be apprehended. State v. Edwards , 717 N.W.2d 405, 413 (Minn. 2006) (citing State v. Austin , 332 N.W.2d 21, 24 (Minn. 1983) ); see also State v. Johnson , 719 N.W.2d 619, 629 (Minn. 2006) (de......
  • State v. Hernandez, No. A09-486 (Minn. App. 6/8/2010)
    • United States
    • Minnesota Court of Appeals
    • 8 de junho de 2010
    ...for a jury instruction, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction." State v. Edwards, 717 N.W.2d 405, 410 (Minn. 2006). We apply an abuse-of-discretion standard of review to a district court's refusal to give a requested jury instruction. Sta......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • § 17.01 Historical Overview
    • United States
    • Carolina Academic Press Understanding Criminal Law (CAP) 2022 Title Chapter 17 Justifications and Excuses
    • Invalid date
    ...of Justification: Societal Harm as a Prerequisite for Criminal Liability, 23 UCLA L. Rev. 266, 276 (1975).[4] E.g., State v. Edwards, 717 N.W.2d 405, 413 n.4 (Minn. 2006) ("While the term[s] . . . are often used interchangeably, they are distinct legal concepts."); State v. Leidholm, 334 N.......
  • § 17.01 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
    • United States
    • Carolina Academic Press Understanding Criminal Law (CAP) 2018 Title Chapter 17 Justifications and Excuses
    • Invalid date
    ...of Justification: Societal Harm as a Prerequisite for Criminal Liability, 23 UCLA L. Rev. 266, 276 (1975).[4] . E.g., State v. Edwards, 717 N.W.2d 405, 413 n.4 (Minn. 2006) ("While the term[s] . . . are often used interchangeably, they are distinct legal concepts."); State v. Leidholm, 334 ......
  • TABLE OF CASES
    • United States
    • Carolina Academic Press Understanding Criminal Law (CAP) 2018 Title Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...451, 452 Ecker, State v., 311 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1975), 46 Edwards, State v., 60 S.W.3d 602 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001), 233 Edwards, State v., 717 N.W.2d 405 (Minn. 2006), 198 Eichorn, In re, 69 Cal. App. 4th 382 (Ct. App. 1998), 272 Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972), 112 Eldredge v. United S......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT