State v. Fairbanks

Decision Date05 February 2014
Docket NumberNo. A11–2164.,A11–2164.
Citation842 N.W.2d 297
PartiesSTATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Thomas Lee FAIRBANKS, Appellant.
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Syllabus by the Court

1. The district court did not abuse its discretion when, after granting appellant's unopposed motion to transfer venue, it transferred the case to a county to which appellant objected. In choosing the venue where the case would be tried, the district court properly identified, considered, and weighed all relevant factors, and took additional steps to mitigate potential prejudice and give defendant a fair trial before an impartial jury.

2. The prosecution was not barred by the common law “year-and-a-day rule.” If the rule ever existed in Minnesota, it did not survive the 1963 enactment of Minnesota's modern criminal code.

3. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting into evidence autopsy and “spark-of-life” photographs of the victim. The prosecution's reference to the photographs in opening statement was not improper.

4. The evidence is sufficient to support defendant's convictions on three counts of first-degree assault of law enforcement officers. But conviction on a fourth count must be reversed because the evidence is insufficient to prove that defendant fired in the direction of the law enforcement officers.

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, John B. Galus, Assistant Attorney General, Saint Paul, MN; and Darlene Rivera, Mahnomen County Attorney, Mahnomen, MN, for respondent.

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Theodora Gaïtas, Special Assistant State Public Defender, Saint Paul, MN, for appellant.

OPINION

LILLEHAUG, Justice.

Appellant Thomas Lee Fairbanks was found guilty by a jury of first-degree murder of a peace officer, failure to render aid to a shooting victim, four counts of first-degree assault, two counts of second-degree assault, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and attempted theft of a motor vehicle in connection with the shooting death of Mahnomen County Deputy Sheriff Christopher Lee Dewey. On appeal, Fairbanks makes four arguments: (1) the district court abused its discretion when it transferred venue to Polk County; (2) the common law “year-and-a-day rule” barred the murder prosecution; (3) the district court abused its discretion by admitting into evidence several autopsy photographs and a “spark-of-life” photograph of Deputy Dewey; and (4) the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdicts finding Fairbanks guilty of four counts of first-degree assault. We reverse one of the first-degree assault convictions, but otherwise affirm.

During the evening of February 17, 2009, Fairbanks began drinking alcohol at his trailer home in Mahnomen. He and an acquaintance, Daniel Curt Vernier, drank more alcohol at the nearby Shooting Star Casino. They returned to Fairbanks' home. Fairbanks then took a 9–millimeter pistol and fired several shots inside and outside the home. On two separate occasions, police came to Fairbanks' home to investigate the gunfire.

At approximately 7:00 a.m. on February 18, 2009, Fairbanks and Vernier walked to a neighbor's house in order to get more alcohol and elude police. Fairbanks took the pistol with him. Shortly thereafter, Deputy Dewey arrived by squad car, left his vehicle, and walked towards Fairbanks and Vernier. Without provocation, Fairbanks fired at Deputy Dewey, severely injuring him with shots to the head and abdomen. When another deputy arrived, Fairbanks and Vernier retreated to Fairbanks' home. Meanwhile, Deputy Dewey was transported to the Mahnomen Health Center, and then airlifted to a hospital in Fargo.

Over the next several hours, police arrived and surrounded Fairbanks' home. During the standoff, multiple officers reported hearing gunfire coming from Fairbanks' home. Two muffled shots were heard at 8:30 a.m. A third more distinct shot was heard at approximately 9:10 a.m., and it may have struck an adjacent home. Vernier testified that Fairbanks was responsible for the gunfire.

Fairbanks later fell asleep in his home. Vernier then grabbed the pistol from the sleeping Fairbanks, left the house, and surrendered to the police. Eventually Fairbanks surrendered without incident. Fairbanks was charged with attempted murder and other felony offenses.

Fairbanks moved for a change of venue on prejudicial publicity grounds. The State did not object to transferring the trial from Mahnomen County. After considering several alternatives, the district court decided to try the matter in Polk County. Fairbanks, a Native American, objected to Polk County on the ground that it had a low percentage of Native Americans. He also argued that the transfer did not ameliorate his prejudicial publicity concerns. The district court denied Fairbanks' motion to transfer venue from Polk County.

As Fairbanks' trial drew closer, Deputy Dewey's condition deteriorated and he entered hospice care. He died on August 9, 2010, about 18 months after he was shot. Following Deputy Dewey's death, Fairbanks was indicted for first-degree murder of a peace officer. The district court determined that the common law year-and-a-day rule did not bar Fairbanks' murder prosecution.

Before trial, Fairbanks moved in limine to exclude autopsy photographs and a spark-of-life photograph of Deputy Dewey. Of particular concern to Fairbanks was the photographic comparison of Deputy Dewey's upper body and face before the shooting to his face as it appeared during the autopsy. The district court denied the motion to exclude and ruled that the photographs were admissible. The State used the photographs in its opening statement. Immediately after the opening and out of hearing of the jury, Fairbanks objected. The district court overruled Fairbanks' objection. Later, through a medical examiner, the photographs were offered and received into evidence.

Fairbanks testified at trial. He admitted shooting Deputy Dewey with the 9–millimeter pistol. Fairbanks' defense was that he was “very intoxicated and on drugs” at the time of the shooting, and was thereby unable to form the requisite intent.

At the conclusion of the month-long trial, the Polk County jury rejected Fairbanks' intoxication defense and found him guilty of first-degree murder of a peace officer, Minn.Stat. § 609.185(a)(4) (2012); failure to render aid to a shooting victim, Minn.Stat. § 609.662, subd. 2(a) (2012); four counts of first-degree assault, Minn.Stat. § 609.221, subd. 2(a) (2012); two counts of second-degree assault, Minn.Stat. § 609.222, subd. 1 (2012); being a felon in possession of a firearm, Minn.Stat. § 609.165, subd. 1b (2012); and attempted theft of a motor vehicle, Minn.Stat. § 609.52, subd. 2(a)(17) (2012). On the first-degree murder charge, the district court sentenced Fairbanks to the mandatory term of life in prison without the possibility of release. Fairbanks appealed.

I.

Fairbanks' first argument on appeal is that the district court abused its discretion when it transferred venue to Polk County. Under the Minnesota Constitution, Fairbanks had a right to be tried in the county or district in which the alleged crime occurred. Minn. Const. art. I, § 6; see alsoMinn. R.Crim. P. 24.01 (The case must be tried in the county where the offense was committed unless these rules direct otherwise.”). As the alleged crime occurred in Mahnomen County, Fairbanks would have been tried there but for his motion to transfer venue and the district court's decision to grant it. Fairbanks cannot, and does not, challenge the district court's decisionto move his case from Mahnomen County, as he requested. Instead, he contends that the district court erred by selecting Polk County as the venue.

The standard of review on a venue transfer challenge is whether the district court abused its discretion. State v. Blom, 682 N.W.2d 578, 607 (Minn.2004); State v. Fratzke, 354 N.W.2d 402, 406 (Minn.1984); see also State v. Webber, 292 N.W.2d 5, 12 (Minn.1980) (reviewing for an abuse of discretion the district court's decision to change venue to a county to which the defendant objected).

Fairbanks challenges the district court's exercise of discretion in two respects. First, Fairbanks posits that the new venue did not cure the concern that prompted his original motion: prejudicial pretrial publicity. Fairbanks claims that much of the pretrial publicity was sympathetic to Deputy Dewey and “demonized” Fairbanks. He argues that the prejudicial publicity was not mitigated adequately because the district court moved the trial to a courthouse only 55 miles from where the alleged crime occurred.

Second, Fairbanks argues that the comparative racial demographics of the new venue deprived him of his right to a fair trial. Fairbanks notes that the district court moved the case from Mahnomen County, which is 40% Native American, to Polk County, which is less than 2% Native American.

A.

Turning first to allegedly prejudicial publicity, a change of venue from the county where the alleged crime occurred is warranted when “potentially prejudicial material creates a reasonable likelihood that a fair trial cannot be had.” Minn. R.Crim. P. 25.02, subd. 3. While Fairbanks' motion under Rule 25.02 was not opposed by the State and was granted by the district court, Fairbanks contends that the district court abused its discretion in the relief granted. To prevail, Fairbanks must prove that he suffered actual prejudice from pretrial publicity in the new venue. See State v. Warren, 592 N.W.2d 440, 447–48 (Minn.1999); State v. Everett, 472 N.W.2d 864, 866 (Minn.1991); State v. Kinsky, 348 N.W.2d 319, 323 (Minn.1984). To prove actual prejudice from pretrial publicity, Fairbanks must show that the pretrial publicity influenced the specific jurors involved in the case. Warren, 592 N.W.2d at 447–48. “The mere fact that a juror has been exposed to pretrial publicity is insufficient to show prejudice.” Id. at 449. Rather, the test is whether a prospective juror can set...

To continue reading

Request your trial
52 cases
  • State v. Smith, s. A14–0941
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • 9 Marzo 2016
    ...of biographical testimony about the victim, including "a photograph of the victim before the injury occurred." State v. Fairbanks, 842 N.W.2d 297, 305 (Minn.2014).During the grand-jury proceeding, Kifer's mother testified about her daughter's activities and involvement in high school. She i......
  • Wheeler v. State
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • 21 Marzo 2018
    ...appropriate remedy for this violation.6 This is a purely legal question, so the standard of review is de novo. See State v. Fairbanks , 842 N.W.2d 297, 304 (Minn. 2014). The court of appeals has adopted a rule of per se plea invalidity "[a]nytime a district court improperly injects itself i......
  • State v. Griffin
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • 16 Noviembre 2016
    ...went off.Consequently, Griffin's contention that he was falling is not one of the circumstances proved in this case. State v. Fairbanks, 842 N.W.2d 297, 307 (Minn.2014) (explaining that in identifying the circumstances proved, we assume the jury accepted the State's proof of the given circu......
  • State v. Purdom
    • United States
    • Minnesota Court of Appeals
    • 27 Mayo 2014
    ...as a whole, must be consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any other rational hypothesis except that of guilt." State v. Fairbanks, 842 N.W.2d 297, 307 (Minn. 2014). "If the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis other than guilt, t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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