State v. Harvey
Decision Date | 28 August 2019 |
Docket Number | A18-0205 |
Citation | 932 N.W.2d 792 |
Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Nigeria Lee HARVEY, Appellant. |
Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota; and Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Jonathan P. Schmidt, Assistant County Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for respondent.
Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Benjamin J. Butler, Assistant Public Defender, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for appellant.
Appellant Nigeria Lee Harvey appeals his convictions for first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder.Harvey argues that the district court admitted evidence in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution,Minn. Stat. § 626A.42(2018), andMinn. R. Evid. 702.Harvey also argues that the district court erred when it overruled his Batson1 challenge.Finally, he raises claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct in his pro se supplemental brief.We conclude that the admission of the challenged evidence did not violate the Fourth Amendment or the substantive requirements of Minn. Stat. § 626A.42, and to the extent that it violated Minn. R. Evid. 702, the error was harmless.We also conclude that the district court did not clearly err when it determined that Harvey failed to make a prima facie showing of discrimination under step one of the Batson inquiry.Finally, we conclude that the issues raised in Harvey’s pro se supplemental brief are without merit.Accordingly, we affirm.
Harvey was convicted of the premeditated first-degree murder of Omarr Johnson and the attempted premeditated first-degree murder of Harvey’s drug supplier, A.A.The crimes occurred just after midnight on July 27, 2015, when Johnson and A.A. were shot in Minneapolis at the intersection of 34th Avenue North and Morgan Avenue North.A ShotSpotter2 device detected eleven gunshots between 12:06:52 a.m. and 12:07:34 a.m. on July 27.3A.A. survived a gunshot wound to the head and drove himself to the hospital, but Johnson died at the scene from multiple gunshot wounds.At the hospital, A.A. told the police that Harvey had shot him and Johnson.
As part of their investigation, police sought records for Harvey’s cell phone, including cell-site location information (CSLI).The police wanted Harvey’s cell phone records because A.A. told police that "Najee"4 and Johnson had been in contact via cell phone shortly before the shootings.Johnson’s cell phone, which police recovered at the scene, contained a record of two calls, just before the shootings, with a contact named "Nige."Police sought records for the phone number associated with Nige and obtained a court order authorizing the disclosure of the CSLI for that number.The records confirmed that the number associated with Nige was the number for Harvey’s cell phone.
After police obtained Harvey’s cell phone records, FBI Agent James Berni analyzed the CSLI to form an opinion regarding Harvey’s whereabouts before, during, and after the shootings.In August 2016, before Harvey’s trial, Agent Berni also conducted a drive test using a device called a Gladiator Autonomous Receiver (GAR) to determine the outer limits of the cell tower and sector that the cell phone records showed Harvey’s phone accessed at the time of the shootings.5
Following the police investigation, the State charged Harvey.A Hennepin County grand jury subsequently indicted Harvey for first-degree premeditated murder and attempted premeditated first-degree murder.The grand jury also indicted Harvey for first-degree murder while attempting to commit aggravated robbery and attempted first-degree murder while attempting to commit aggravated robbery.Harvey pleaded not guilty to these charges.
Before trial, Harvey moved to suppress the CSLI evidence, arguing that it was collected in violation of the Fourth AmendmentandMinnesota Statutes.The district court denied Harvey’s motion.The court also held a Frye - Mack hearing to determine whether the CSLI and GAR drive-test evidence involved novel scientific theories and, if so, to provide the State an opportunity to demonstrate that the theory was generally accepted in the relevant scientific community and that the particular scientific evidence had foundational reliability.6The district court concluded that the evidence was admissible under Minn. R. Evid. 702, and the case proceeded to trial.
During jury selection, the State used a peremptory challenge to remove an African-American venire member, prospective Juror 18.Harvey objected to the peremptory challenge, arguing that it violated Batson v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69(1986).After determining that Harvey failed to make a prima facie showing of discrimination under step one of a Batson inquiry, the district court overruled the objection.
At trial, A.A. testified to the following facts.He and Johnson had known each other since they were 14 years old and were very close friends, like "brothers."In the summer of 2015, A.A. was "selling drugs" and "dealing with the ladies."He had a couple of guys "copping from [him,]" which means they were buying drugs from him, and they, in turn, sold to others.Johnson was "copping" from A.A., and although Johnson was new to drug dealing, he was "like [A.A.’s] right-hand man."At some point, Johnson introduced Harvey to A.A., and Harvey started "copping" from A.A. as well.A.A. "fronted" drugs to Harvey, meaning that A.A. would give Harvey the drugs up front with the expectation that A.A. would be paid back, because Harvey was close to Johnson.
A.A. testified that he had seen Harvey driving a 2003 silver, four-door Chevy Malibu with "Car Hop" plates.7And A.A. explained that in the past, he and Harvey had been together in the Chevy Malibu with the same Car Hop plates.
At some point, A.A. learned that Harvey was upset with Johnson because Johnson had taken up with Harvey’s girlfriend, Jas (Jazzy).Jas would sometimes sell drugs for Harvey.Some weeks before the shootings, Harvey told A.A. that Johnson "knows better ‘cause [Harvey is] good with the hands [meaning his fists] and good with the pistol."A.A. explained that Jazzy being with Johnson "kind of messed [Harvey’s] money up" and was hurting him financially because Jazzy started selling drugs for Johnson instead of Harvey.
Harvey owed A.A. $175 for an "eightball of hard," which is crack cocaine.On the night of July 26, A.A. wanted to talk to Harvey about the money he owed him, but Harvey was dodging his calls and said his phone was broken, so A.A. had Johnson call Harvey.A.A. told Johnson that if Harvey did not pay, Johnson would have to pay "because [A.A.] only gave [the crack cocaine] to [Harvey] because of [Johnson]."
When Johnson called Harvey, using a speakerphone, Harvey answered, saying he was at 32nd and Clinton, at the home of the mother of his child.A.A. and Johnson went to that home and then called Harvey back, saying, "you ain't over there," and Harvey responded, "I'm over north now, I'm on 34th and Morgan."They told Harvey, "We'll be over there in 15 minutes."A.A. and Johnson drove to 34th and Morgan in a white Buick Lucerne.When they arrived, A.A. and Johnson sat in the car smoking marijuana, drinking lean (a mix of promethazine and codeine), and talking.They were there about 15 minutes and had decided to leave when they finished smoking.Soon after, Harvey pulled up behind them.A.A. saw the headlights of Harvey’s Malibu about eight feet behind them through his side mirror.He was sure it was a Malibu.A.A. saw Harvey—or Najee, as A.A. knew him—get out of the driver’s side of the Malibu.Harvey jumped in the backseat of the Buick, with A.A. and Johnson sitting in the front.
At first, the three men talked and laughed.Harvey was shuffling money in the backseat and said he was getting the money together.When A.A turned around after Johnson said something funny, Harvey shot him in the head, at his ear.Neither A.A. nor Johnson were armed, and A.A. explained that, after being shot, he just laid there, bleeding.He slumped down and "[e]verything went white."A.A. next remembered feeling someone go into his pocket and take some money.He said that on that night, he was carrying $2,770 in drug money.He then heard somebody say, "where'd he go."After that, A.A. heard "like five more shots[,]" which "startled [him] to the point [that he] sat up and threw it in drive and ... sped north of Morgan" to the hospital.
Sergeant Charles Green of the Minneapolis Police Department came to the hospital to question A.A.Concerned about his own and his family’s safety, A.A. told the police what happened because he felt heAt trial, A.A. described his conversation with Sergeant Green, including identifying Najee as the shooter, relating the events leading up to the shootings, and Sergeant Green telling him that Johnson had died.As part of his testimony, A.A. identified Harvey in court as the person who shot him and Johnson.
In addition to A.A.’s testimony, the State offered testimony from law enforcement.Forensic scientist Tracy MacDougall of the Minneapolis crime lab unit testified that she processed the Buick Lucerne that A.A. drove to the hospital.She testified that she found bullet fragments and conducted a DNA swab of the vehicle’s interior.MacDougall also testified about processing a 2003Chevy Malibu on August 4, 2015.Police saw Harvey in this vehicle approximately four days before the shootings.MacDougall testified that there were two license plate placards for Car Hop located on the rear passenger floor.MacDougall also testified that she found a T-Mobile bill, addressed to Harvey, inside the Malibu.
Sergeant Green testified regarding the timing and location of the gunshots, as provided by the ShotSpotter.The jury heard recordings of the gunshots.Sergeant Green also confirmed that A.A. identified ...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
State v. Dominguez-Solis
...reverse a conviction if the error was harmless. State v. Loving, 775 N.W.2d 872, 879 (Minn. 2009). An error is harmless "[w]hen there is no reasonable possibility that it substantially influenced the jury's decision."
State v. Harvey, 932 N.W.2d 792, 810 (Minn. 2019); see also State v. Vang, 774 N.W.2d 566, 576 2009) ("If no constitutional right was implicated, [a reviewing court] will reverse only if the district court's error substantially influence[d] the jury's decision." (quotation... -
State v. Berry
...district court should have held a pretrial hearing to consider whether the CSLI evidence had foundational reliability. We review a district court's finding that evidence has foundational reliability for abuse of discretion.
Harvey , 932 N.W.2d at 806. The district court did not require a hearing on foundational reliability outside the presence of the jury. Rather, the court permitted the State to attempt to prove foundational reliability during the expert's testimony before the jury.analysis. He also explained that the cell-service providers keep this data to manage their network, not for law enforcement purposes. This testimony is very similar to the testimony we held established foundational reliability in Harvey. See 932 N.W.2d at 808 (holding CSLI evidence had foundational reliability based on expert testimony that the data is reliable, that cell companies use the data to evaluate network coverage, that cell companies have a "vested interest in maintainingalso explained that the cell-service providers keep this data to manage their network, not for law enforcement purposes. This testimony is very similar to the testimony we held established foundational reliability in Harvey. See 932 N.W.2d at 808(holding CSLI evidence had foundational reliability based on expert testimony that the data is reliable, that cell companies use the data to evaluate network coverage, that cell companies have a "vested interest in maintaining accurate... -
Moore v. Maple Grove Hosp.
...it has not yet been subject to "the rigors of a Frye-Mack hearing"). And there is no indication that CCIE has longstanding use in clinical practice, or that it exists outside of the litigation context. See
State v. Harvey, 932 N.W.2d 792, 808 (Minn. 2019)(recognizing that technology related to the evidence had been used for over a decade). Because the CCIE evidence is novel, the question becomes whether the underlying science is generally accepted within the relevant scientifictestimony to establish the foundational reliability of the expert's opinion. State v. Harvey, 932 N.W.2d 792, 806 (Minn. 2019). There is no difference between the foundational reliability required by rule 702 and by the Frye-Mack standard. Id.assessment of the foundational reliability of an expert's opinion begins by considering the purpose for which it is offered." State v. Berry, 982 N.W.2d 746, 757 (Minn. 2022). The district court must also "consider the underlying reliability,... -
Harvey v. Minnesota
...requirement. He further asserts that the prosecutor committed misconduct in using this supposed illegal evidence. But Harvey's claims lack merit and were squarely addressed by the Minnesota Supreme Court.
State of Minnesota v. Harvey, 932 N.W.2d 792, 805 (Minn. 2019). The court order authorizing collection of Harvey's cell location data "contained a probable-cause determination," id., thus satisfying the requirements of Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018). A claim thatsquarely addressed by the Minnesota Supreme Court. State of Minnesota v. Harvey, 932 N.W.2d 792, 805 (Minn. 2019). The court order authorizing collection of Harvey's cell location data "contained a probable-cause determination," id., thus satisfying the requirements of Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018). A claim that would have been rejected on the merits cannot satisfy the tests for ineffective assistance of counsel as set forth in Strickland v. Washington,...