State v. Gatson, A10–0247.

Decision Date03 August 2011
Docket NumberNo. A10–0247.,A10–0247.
Citation801 N.W.2d 134
PartiesSTATE of Minnesota, Respondent,v.Dameon Deshay GATSON, Appellant.
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Syllabus by the Court

1. The trial court did not err when it concluded that the State's asserted reason for striking an African–American male

prospective juror was not a pretext for purposeful discrimination.

2. The State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant knowingly and intentionally aided the crimes of another.

3. The trial court did not err when it failed to instruct the jury sua sponte as to what constitutes a “human being” for purposes of Minn.Stat. §§ 609.185(a)(1) and 609.19, subd. 1(1) (2010).

4. The trial court did not err when it declined to instruct the jury that removal of the victim's life support could be a superseding intervening cause of her death.

5. The trial court did not err when it denied appellant's request to instruct the jury on attempted murder and first-degree assault as lesser-included offenses of the first-degree murder charge.

6. Even if the trial court erred when it admitted out-of-court statements in violation of appellant's right to confrontation and our hearsay rules, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the jury's verdict was surely unattributable to the error.

7. It was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to deny appellant's motion for a new trial based on the State's opening statements with respect to appellant's accomplice's testimony.

8. Even if the trial court erred when it denied appellant's motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, any error was harmless.

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, MN, Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, David C. Brown, Assistant County Attorney, Minneapolis, MN, for respondent.David W. Merchant, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Steven P. Russett, Assistant State Public Defender, St. Paul, MN, for appellant.

OPINION

PAGE, Justice.

On July 5, 2007, appellant Dameon Deshay Gatson was indicted for first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and first-degree assault, pursuant to Minn.Stat. §§ 609.185(a)(1), 609.19, subd. 1(1), and 609.221, subd. 1 (2010), respectively. On October 30, 2009, a jury found Gatson guilty on all three counts. The trial court denied Gatson's motion for a new trial, convicted him of first-degree premeditated murder and first-degree assault, and sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of release for the murder conviction and to a concurrent 86–month term for the first-degree assault conviction. In this direct appeal, Gatson raises the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred when it found that the State's asserted reason for striking a prospective juror was not a pretext for purposeful discrimination; (2) whether the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Gatson knowingly and intentionally aided another in committing the assault and the intentional killing of a human being; (3) whether the trial court erred when it failed to instruct the jury sua sponte on whether the homicide victim was a “human being” and whether the removal of the victim's life support was a superseding intervening cause for purposes of Minn.Stat. §§ 609.185(a)(1) and 609.19, subd. 1(1); (4) whether the trial court erred when it denied Gatson's request to instruct the jury on attempted murder and first-degree assault as lesser-included offenses of the first-degree murder charge; (5) whether the trial court's decision to admit portions of Gatson's accomplice's guilty plea violated Gatson's right to confrontation and our hearsay rules; (6) whether Gatson was denied a fair trial due to the State's opening statements regarding his accomplice's testimony; and (7) whether the trial court erred when it denied Gatson's motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm Gatson's convictions.

On April 21, 2007, Shyloe Linde was at her friend's apartment in St. Louis Park. At that time, Linde was six months pregnant with Gatson's baby. Shortly before 11 a.m. that morning, a young, African–American man wearing a light blue sweatshirt knocked on the door of the apartment asking to speak with Linde. Linde did not recognize the man and refused to speak with him, but the man persisted and Linde eventually agreed to talk to him. After she stepped into the hallway, the man punched Linde in the stomach two times and ran away. Linde immediately began having contractions.

Linde was taken to Hennepin County Medical Center where doctors performed an emergency caesarean section to deliver the baby. The baby, who was named Destiny Gatson, weighed just under two pounds, was placed on life support, and had numerous medical procedures over the next nine days in an effort to save her life. During those nine days, Destiny's condition deteriorated and her doctors ultimately recommended removing her life support. Destiny's life support was removed on May 1, 2007, and she died soon after.

During their initial investigation, the police talked to a witness who, at around the time Linde was assaulted, was at a gas station near the apartment where the assault on Linde took place. The witness reported seeing a young, African–American male wearing a light blue sweatshirt run from around a wall near where the witness was standing. According to the witness, the man yelled, “I did it; let's go; let's go,” then jumped into a vehicle driven by another man. The vehicle then sped away. The driver of the vehicle was later identified as Gatson. Further investigation revealed that the man in the light blue sweatshirt was Paul Petersen and that the vehicle was a Chevy Lumina owned by a friend of Gatson's. When interviewed by the police, Gatson initially denied knowing Petersen. Later, however, Gatson not only admitted that he knew Petersen, he also admitted that on the day of the assault he drove Petersen to and from the apartment where Linde was assaulted.

Gatson was ultimately arrested and indicted for first-degree premeditated murder and second-degree murder for aiding Petersen in the killing of Destiny and first-degree assault for aiding Petersen in the assault on Linde. At trial, the State presented evidence that Gatson fabricated an alibi as to his whereabouts before and during the time of the assault on Linde, that Gatson called Linde shortly before the assault and learned she was at her friend's apartment, that Gatson drove Petersen to and from the friend's apartment on the day of the assault, that Gatson sent Petersen up to the apartment to see Linde at the time of the assault, that shortly after the assault occurred, Petersen ran toward a vehicle yelling, “I did it; let's go; let's go,” that Petersen got into the vehicle, and that Gatson drove that vehicle away at a high rate of speed. In addition, a portion of the transcript of Petersen's guilty plea hearing was read at Gatson's trial, through which the jury learned that Petersen admitted being friends with Gatson and that Petersen punched Linde with the intent to kill Linde's unborn child. The transcript of Petersen's guilty plea hearing was read into the record after the trial court determined that Gatson had procured a man named Rashad Arthur Raleigh to threaten Petersen from testifying against Gatson, and that Gatson had therefore forfeited his right to confrontation. In making its determination, the trial court considered Petersen's testimony that, as a result of Gatson's efforts, Petersen had almost been stabbed three times while incarcerated at the Minnesota Correctional Facility in St. Cloud (MCF–St.Cloud), that Raleigh had threatened Petersen while they were both incarcerated at MCF–St. Cloud, and that people had been shooting outside of and at his mother's house.

After the jury found Gatson guilty, Gatson made a timely motion for a new trial claiming that his right to confrontation and his right to a fair trial were violated, that statements made by the State in its opening and closing arguments were improper and prejudicial, and that newly discovered evidence entitled him to a new trial. The trial court denied the motion and sentenced Gatson as previously noted. This appeal followed.

I.

We first address Gatson's argument that the trial court erred when it found that the State's asserted reason for striking a prospective juror, R.R., was not a pretext for purposeful discrimination. The exclusion of a person from a jury based solely on the person's race is prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. State v. Greenleaf, 591 N.W.2d 488, 500 (Minn.1999) (citing Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 89, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986)). To determine whether a peremptory strike was discriminatory, we apply the three-part test articulated by the Supreme Court in Batson. Greenleaf, 591 N.W.2d at 500. That test requires that the defendant first make a prima facie showing that the strike of the prospective juror was made on the basis of race. Id. If a prima facie showing is made, the burden then shifts to the State to articulate a race-neutral reason for the strike. Id. At this second step, the focus of the inquiry is on the facial validity of the explanation; therefore, the prosecutor's reason will be deemed race-neutral unless discriminatory intent is inherent. Id. Finally, at the third step, if the State has established a race-neutral reason for the strike, the trial court must determine whether the reason given was a pretext for purposeful discrimination. Id. In doing so, the trial court may take into consideration whether the State's strike will result in the disproportionate exclusion of members of a certain race. Id. Reviewing courts give considerable deference to the trial court's findings because a determination of intent is based in large part on the trial court's evaluation of credibility. Id. If it is ultimately determined that the reason given...

To continue reading

Request your trial
122 cases
  • State v. Harris
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • May 24, 2017
    ...the jury is in a unique position to determine the credibility of the witnesses and weigh the evidence before it. State v. Gatson , 801 N.W.2d 134, 144 (Minn. 2011). It "is free to accept part and reject part of a witness's testimony." State v. Landa , 642 N.W.2d 720, 725 (Minn. 2002). To be......
  • Diversified Concepts LLC v. Koford
    • United States
    • Utah Court of Appeals
    • July 1, 2021
  • State v. Moore, A14–0358.
    • United States
    • Minnesota Court of Appeals
    • May 11, 2015
    ...269, 274 (Minn.2014). A district court has “considerable latitude” in selecting the language of jury instructions. State v. Gatson, 801 N.W.2d 134, 147 (Minn.2011). Accordingly, this court applies an abuse-of-discretion standard of review to a district court's jury instructions. Koppi, 798 ......
  • State v. Porte
    • United States
    • Minnesota Court of Appeals
    • June 24, 2013
    ...362 (Minn.2011). A district court, however, has “considerable latitude” in selecting language for jury instructions. State v. Gatson, 801 N.W.2d 134, 147 (Minn.2011) (quotation omitted). Accordingly, we apply an abuse-of-discretion standard of review to a district court's jury instructions.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Hearsay
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Trial Evidence Foundations - 2016 Contents
    • July 31, 2016
    ...the admissibility of statements against penal interest: Nevada, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Indiana, North Dakota, and Vermont. State v. Gatson , 801 N.W.2d 134 (Minn. 2011). In a murder case charging defendant, by accomplice, murdered a child in utero by having the accomplice pummel the expectant ......
  • Hearsay
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Trial Evidence Foundations - 2017 Contents
    • July 31, 2017
    ...the admissibility of statements against penal interest: Nevada, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Indiana, North Dakota, and Vermont. State v. Gatson , 801 N.W.2d 134 (Minn. 2011). In a murder case charging defendant, by accomplice, murdered a child in utero by having the accomplice pummel the expectant ......
  • Hearsay
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Trial Evidence Foundations - 2018 Contents
    • July 31, 2018
    ...against penal interest: Nevada, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Indiana, North Dakota, and Vermont. HEARSAY §641 HEARSAY 6-92 State v. Gatson , 801 N.W.2d 134 (Minn. 2011). In a murder case charging defendant, by accomplice, murdered a child in utero by having the accomplice pummel the expectant mother......
  • Hearsay
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Trial Evidence Foundations - 2014 Contents
    • July 31, 2014
    ...the admissibility of statements against penal interest: Nevada, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Indiana, North Dakota, and Vermont. State v. Gatson , 801 N.W.2d 134 (Minn. 2011). In a murder case charging defendant, by accomplice, murdered a child in utero by having the accomplice pummel the expectant ......
  • 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