State v. Hallmark, A18-0825
| Decision Date | 15 May 2019 |
| Docket Number | A18-0825 |
| Citation | 927 N.W.2d 281 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Marcus Allen Wayne HALLMARK, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota, and Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Jean Burdorf, Assistant Hennepin County Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for respondent.
Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Steven P. Russett, Assistant State Public Defender, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for appellant.
Appellant Marcus Hallmark was found guilty by a Hennepin County jury of first-degree premeditated murder, Minn. Stat. § 609.185(a)(1) (2018), and second-degree intentional murder, Minn. Stat. § 609.19, subd. 1(1) (2018), for killing Thomas Russ at a park-and-ride facility in Minnetonka. The district court convicted Hallmark on both charges and sentenced him to life without the possibility of release. On direct appeal, Hallmark raises, through his attorney, three claims of alleged reversible error. He first argues that the district court abused its discretion by admitting, under Minnesota Rule of Evidence 807, the prior recorded statement of an eyewitness. He also asserts that the district court abused its discretion by admitting, under Minnesota Rule of Evidence 403, evidence from a backpack found after Russ was murdered. Finally, Hallmark asserts that the district court erred by convicting him of both first-degree and second-degree murder in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.04 (2018). Hallmark asserts several other claims of error in a supplemental pro se brief.
Because we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the challenged evidence, and because Hallmark’s pro se claims lack merit, we affirm Hallmark’s conviction for first-degree premeditated murder. But because the district court improperly entered a conviction on both first-degree and second-degree murder, we reverse Hallmark’s conviction for second-degree intentional murder and remand this case to the district court to vacate that conviction.
Late in the evening on March 3, 2017, Russ was shot and killed at a Metro Transit park-and-ride facility in Minnetonka. He was shot twice—once in the back of his head and once in the forehead from between a half inch and 2 feet away—and died at the scene.
In the days before the shooting, Hallmark’s mother, A.M., loaned Hallmark her vehicle to use while she was at the hospital assisting her daughter. Because one of the tires on the vehicle went flat, Hallmark left it at the Minnetonka park-and-ride on March 2. The next evening, March 3, A.M. left the hospital and returned home where she learned about the flat tire and the location of her vehicle. Because her sister drove the same type of vehicle and had the same spare tire, A.M. borrowed her sister’s vehicle to go fix the flat tire. A.M.’s sister, Hallmark, and Russ (the boyfriend of A.M.’s daughter) went along to help. No fights or disputes occurred on the drive to the park-and-ride.
A.M.’s sister drove her vehicle to the park-and-ride and parked a few spots away from A.M.’s vehicle inside the facility. A.M. did not see anyone else around at that time. A.M.’s sister, Hallmark, and Russ then left the vehicle and removed the spare tire from the trunk of A.M.’s sister’s vehicle. A.M.’s sister then got back into the vehicle with A.M. Hallmark and Russ went over to A.M.’s vehicle to begin fixing the flat tire. According to A.M., Russ was doing most of the work fixing the tire, but Hallmark was helping by handing him tools. At no point were there any apparent issues or disputes between Hallmark and Russ.
After Hallmark and Russ began changing the tire, A.M. testified that she heard a "loud noise" that caused her to look over at the tire-changing process. She saw Russ lying on the ground with Hallmark crouched down between the two vehicles. Hallmark later ran from the scene.
A.M. and her sister left the park-and-ride and drove to nearby Ridgedale Mall. A.M. called 911. When asked by the 911 operator what happened at the park-and-ride, A.M. answered "My son shot ‘em ... [a]nd he ran." Also during the 911 call she stated that Additionally, A.M. was heard speaking to some other individual near her during the 911 call. She said, 1
Later, after police had arrived and escorted A.M. and her sister to the Minnetonka police station, A.M. gave a recorded statement to the police. She confirmed that while Hallmark and Russ were working on her vehicle at the park-and-ride, she "heard like this big loud noise like a boom or a pop or something and [she] thought the car or the jack fell on [Russ]." A.M. told police that, after hearing the noise, she looked over at Russ, who was lying on the ground on his back twitching. She stated:
And then all [of a] sudden Mark [Hallmark] just looked at me and gave me this look and I don’t know that look, I’ve never seen that straight no smile no nothing, just these eyes just lookin’ at me, not helping this man, laying there on the ground I didn’t, kind of in a way I was scared you know because it’s like why wouldn’t my son help this guy ... then all of a sudden he, he shot him in [the] head right in the middle of the head while he was laying on his back.
A.M. described the second shot in detail. She said that Hallmark "bent down" and "put it ... right at his forehead ... just right up in the middle of the forehead and then he pulled the trigger, and that’s when I knew, that’s when I [saw] the black gun, that’s when I knew what was going on ...." At the conclusion of her recorded statement, the police asked A.M. whether there was anything important that she had left out of her statement and whether the police had made any promises or threats to her in connection with giving her statement. She responded that she had told them everything and that they had not made any threats or promises to her regarding her statement. She also answered affirmatively when asked if everything she said was true, restated "to the best of [her] recollection." She was given the opportunity to read and sign the statement and fix any errors.
A.M.’s trial testimony differed from the 911 call and her recorded statement.2 A.M. testified that she heard only one gunshot, which she initially thought was a problem with the car, and that she did not see a gun. She testified: When asked whether she recalled saying that she saw Hallmark place a black gun right in the middle of Russ’s forehead and pull the trigger, A.M. responded by saying, Furthermore, during cross-examination by the defense, A.M. testified that she did not see who shot Russ, she was unsure of what the "loud noise" was, she did not know there were two shots, she "never saw a gun," and she "never saw [Hallmark] shoot a gun." She also testified that she was "assuming" when she told the 911 operator what happened because "everything was happening so fast and so quick, and everyone was scared." She further testified that she was in poor condition on the night of the murder because she had been up for three days helping her daughter and was taking medication that made her "very, very drowsy." On redirect examination, the State confronted A.M. with her prior statements. She admitted making the statements, but testified that after a year of it "going over and over in [her] head" there is The district court thereafter admitted A.M.’s recorded statement to police under the residual hearsay exception set forth in Minn. R. Evid. 807.
After the shooting, Hallmark fled the scene on foot. Following a coordinated effort, and with the assistance of a thermal camera affixed to a police helicopter, law enforcement located Hallmark in a marsh near the park-and-ride. Eventually, after being surrounded by police, Hallmark surrendered.
Numerous pieces of physical evidence were collected from the scene of the shooting as well as from the marsh near the park-and-ride. The morning after the shooting, police found a Ruger .380-caliber handgun as well as a small-caliber handgun holster in the marsh.3 While processing the scene of the shooting at the park-and-ride, police recovered two spent .380 Federal Auto ammunition cartridge cases near Russ’s body. Additionally, police found an open safe in the backseat of A.M.’s vehicle. The safe contained numerous types of ammunition, including Federal Auto .380-caliber ammunition. It also contained a Macanudo cigar case, a cardboard box for a Ruger LCP handgun, along with the owner’s manual, and an empty Berretta-brand gun case. A total of 13 usable fingerprints were lifted from various locations on or in the vehicle. Police later executed a warrant for a DNA sample from Hallmark for comparison to any DNA evidence found.
The medical examiner testified at trial that Russ died from two gunshot wounds
to the head. One shot entered the back of Russ’s skull. The medical examiner could not determine the distance that bullet traveled. The other shot entered Russ’s skull above his left eye, and, based on gunpowder burns on Russ’s skin, traveled a distance from half an inch to about two feet. The medical examiner also recovered several bullet fragments from Russ’s skull, which were passed on to the Hennepin County Crime Lab for further analysis.
A Hennepin County crime lab technician testified that the fingerprints found on a cigar box and a Winchester ammunition box in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Helget v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety
...when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record." State v. Hallmark, 927 N.W.2d 281, 291 (Minn. 2019) (quotation omitted). "It is an abuse of the district court's discretion to refuse to give an instruction on the defendant's theory......
-
State v. Velasquez-Lazo
...when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record." State v. Hallmark, 927 N.W.2d 281, 291 (Minn. 2019) (quotation omitted). Appellant claims the district court erred by excluding evidence, limiting the defense's cross-examination of ......
-
State v. Holl, A19-1464
...conviction and remand with instructions to vacate that conviction while leaving the jury's finding of guilt intact. State v. Hallmark , 927 N.W.2d 281, 300 (Minn. 2019). Here, the district court entered judgments of conviction on all five counts. The parties agree that the district court er......
-
State v. Zephier
...(Minn. 1997). We apply an abuse-of-discretion standard of review to a district court's ruling on a hearsay objection. State v. Hallmark, 927 N.W.2d 281, 291 (Minn. 2019). Zephier contends that B.H.'s credibility was not challenged before the district court admitted the prior consistent stat......
-
Physical Objects
...altered; any deficiency in the chain of custody goes to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility. State v. Hallmark , 927 N.W.2d 281 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2019). Generally, objects connected to a crime scene or investigation are relevant at trial even when they are no......
-
Physical Objects
...altered; any deiciency in the chain of custody goes to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility. State v. Hallmark , 927 N.W.2d 281 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2019). Generally, objects connected to a crime scene or investigation are relevant at trial even when they are not......
-
Physical Objects
...of the handling of the subject evidence, the courts may ill gaps in the chain of custody due to an absent witness. 6 State v. Hallmark , 927 N.W.2d 281 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2019). Following a conviction for premeditated murder and a sentence of life without the possibility of releas......