State v. Hill

• Decision Date: 24 August 2011
• Docket Number: No. A09–1947.,A09–1947.
• Citation: State v. Hill, 801 N.W.2d 646 (Minn. 2011)
• Parties: STATE of Minnesota, Respondent,v.Ronald HILL, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

801 N.W.2d 646

STATE of Minnesota, Respondent,

v.Ronald HILL, Appellant.

No. A09–1947.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Aug. 24, 2011.

Syllabus by the Court

1.The district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the State to impeach the defendant at trial with his prior, unspecified felony conviction.

2.Allegedly improper testimony that the State obtained the defendant's DNA sample through a search warrant was harmless because it did not affect the defendant's substantial rights.

3.The defendant is not entitled to relief on his claim that the district court erred when it admitted and subsequently refused to strike testimony that the defendant used a stolen pistol to kill the victim because any alleged error was harmless.

Lori Swanson, Attorney General; and John Choi, Ramsey County Attorney, Mark Nathan Lystig, Assistant County Attorney, St. Paul, MN, for respondent.David W.Merchant, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Theodora Gaïtas, Assistant State Public Defender, St. Paul, MN, for appellant.

OPINION

STRAS, Justice.

A jury found appellantRonald Hill guilty of the first-degree premeditated murder of Jeffrey Logan.The district court convicted Hill of that offense and sentenced him to life imprisonment without the possibility of release.Hill challenges his conviction on three grounds.First, he argues that the district court abused its discretion when it permitted the State to impeach him with a prior, unspecified felony conviction.Second, he contends that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct when it elicited testimony that, unlike other suspects who volunteered DNA samples, the State obtained Hill's DNA sample through a search warrant.Third, he asserts that the district court erred when it permitted the State to present evidence that Hill used a stolen gun to shoot Logan.We affirm Hill's conviction.

I.

On January 31, 2009, Hill shot and killed Jeffrey Logan outside the American Legion club on Concordia Avenue in St. Paul.Hill was indicted on charges of first-degree premeditated murder, Minn.Stat. § 609.185(a)(1)(2010), first-degree felony murder, Minn.Stat. § 609.185(a)(3)(2010), second-degree murder, Minn.Stat. § 609.19, subd. 1(1)(2010), first-degree aggravated robbery, Minn.Stat. § 609.245, subd. 1(2010), and possession of a firearm by an ineligible person, Minn.Stat. § 624.713, subd. 1(2)(2010).

At trial, the State presented testimony from five eyewitnesses to the shooting.Logan's cousin, E.B., testified that he and a high school friend met Logan at the American Legion club, and that the three men left the club together around 1:00 a.m. Logan and E.B. were walking to Logan's car together when a man—later identified as Hill—approached Logan and E.B., held out a gun with a red laser targeting sight, and repeatedly demanded that E.B. hand over his wallet.E.B. threw all of the money contained in his pockets on the ground and asked that Hill “just leave.”

At some point during the exchange, Logan pulled out his Sig Sauer pistol and hit Hill on the head with it.The three men then began to fight, and E.B. testified that during the altercation, Logan pulled Hill's shirt off.Even though both E.B. and Logan attempted to restrain Hill, Hill broke free and started shooting at Logan.Four eyewitnesses testified that they saw Logan run toward the alley at the far end of the parking lot as a shirtless Hill chased and continued to fire at Logan.The eyewitnesses testified that Logan fell to the ground and raised his right hand toward Hill in a pleading gesture, but Hill stood over Logan and shot him multiple times.None of the eyewitnesses testified that they saw a gun in Logan's hand at the time he was shot.Hill and two other men fled the scene in a black Lincoln Continental.St. Paul police officers chased and eventually apprehended Hill and the Lincoln's other two occupants, E.W. and H.R.

The State introduced forensic evidence corroborating the eyewitness testimony.The medical examiner testified that Logan suffered six bullet wounds—through his right palm, through his left knee, in his groin, and three others in his thighs and buttocks.According to the medical examiner, Logan died from excessive blood loss.The medical examiner also testified that the location and trajectory of the bullet wounds were consistent with the eyewitness accounts of the shooting.

The police found three handguns while investigating Logan's death.The Sig Sauer registered to Logan was found in the Lincoln, and an Iver Johnson revolver and a nine millimeter Beretta pistol with a red laser targeting sight were found under a deck next door to where police apprehended H.R., one of the occupants of the Lincoln.Of the three recovered firearms, only the Beretta was a possible match to the bullets and shell casings recovered at the scene of the crime.In addition, only Hill's DNA could not be excluded as a match to samples found on the Beretta and Sig Sauer.

Hill was the sole witness for his defense and his testimony contradicted much of the evidence presented by the State.Hill testified that, on the night of the shooting, he left the American Legion club with two friends, E.W. and H.R.According to Hill, E.W. said that he had been involved in a prior altercation with men resembling Logan and E.B.At E.W.'s insistence, Hill then approached Logan and E.B. to ask whether they knew E.W. and H.R. Hill denied that he attempted to rob E.B. Hill also stated that he did not have a gun until one of his friends handed him the Beretta after Logan pulled out the Sig Sauer.Hill admitted that he fought with E.B. and Logan, but told the jury that he started shooting at Logan because he was afraid that Logan was going to shoot him.Hill further testified that, at the time he was shooting Logan, Logan was standing upright and facing Hill without his hand raised.

Hill told the jury that, after the shooting, he returned to the Lincoln with his friends because he was scared and knew he“did something terrible.”Hill stated that once they were in the Lincoln, E.W. claimed the Beretta belonged to him and grabbed it with gloved hands.Hill testified that someone threw the Sig Sauer into the back seat and that is when he touched it for the first time.

The jury found Hill guilty of all four counts of the indictment, as well as a lesser-included charge of second-degree felony murder, Minn.Stat. § 609.19, sub. 2(1)(2010).The district court convicted Hill of first-degree premeditated murder, and sentenced him to life imprisonment without the possibility of release.This appeal followed.

II.

The first question is whether the district court abused its discretion by allowing the State to impeach Hill with evidence of an unspecified felony conviction.¹In September 2008, Hill was convicted of robbery in Illinois.The court weighed the probative impeachment value against the potential prejudicial effect in admitting the 2008 Illinois robbery conviction.The court concluded that, because of the similarity between the 2008 conviction and the aggravated robbery count in this case, the State could only present evidence that Hill was convicted of an unspecified felony in September 2008.The court prohibited the State from “referenc[ing] what the conviction was for” because of the potential prejudicial effect of the evidence.

In accordance with the district court's evidentiary ruling, Hill responded “Yes” to the following question by defense counsel: “Now in September of 2008, you were convicted of a felony, correct?”The court later issued the following limiting instruction during its final charges to the jury: “In the case of the Defendant, you must be especially careful to consider any previous conviction only as it may affect the weight of the Defendant's testimony.You must not consider any previous conviction as evidence of guilt of the offenses for which the Defendant is on trial.”Hill asserts that the court abused its discretion in allowing the admission of a “sanitized” version of his 2008 felony conviction.We disagree.

We will not reverse a district court's ruling on the impeachment of a witness by prior conviction “absent a clear abuse of discretion.”State v. Ihnot,575 N.W.2d 581, 584(Minn.1998).Minnesota Rule of Evidence 609(a), the rule at issue here, provides as follows:

For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted only if the crime (1) was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year under the law under which the witness was convicted, and the court determines that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect, or (2) involved dishonesty or false statement, regardless of the punishment.

We have never addressed whether a party may impeach a witness through an unspecified felony conviction under Rule 609(a)(1).“When interpreting the Minnesota Rules of Evidence, we first look to the plain language of the rule.”State v. Stone,784 N.W.2d 367, 370(Minn.2010).Rule 609(a) permits impeachment of witnesses by two types of convictions: crimes “punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year” and crimes involving “dishonesty or false statement, regardless of the punishment.”As Rule 609(a) provides, a party must introduce “evidence that [a] witness has been convicted ” of either a felonious crime or a crime of dishonesty as a threshold requirement for the admission of prior conviction evidence.(Emphasis added.)Once that threshold requirement has been satisfied, the rule does not further require the impeaching party to offer evidence about the details or nature of the conviction at the time of impeachment at trial.In other words, the nature of the prior conviction—whether it is a felony or crime of dishonesty—is relevant only to a court's preliminary determination of admissibility.The rule, therefore, does not prohibit impeachment through an unspecified felony conviction...