State v. Hines, 39301

• Decision Date: 31 December 1964
• Docket Number: No. 39301,39301
• Citation: 270 Minn. 30,133 N.W.2d 371
• Parties: STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Howard Lansing HINES, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 371

133 N.W.2d 371

270 Minn. 30

STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Howard Lansing HINES, Appellant.

No. 39301.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Dec. 31, 1964.

Syllabus by the Court

1. A witness may not give a conclusionary opinion about the subjective intention or knowledge of another, and therefore is not permitted to testify that another 'knew accurately and exactly what was happening.'

2. Where the facts upon which an inadmissible opinion is based are described in detail, there is evidence from which the trier of fact may draw his own conclusion and admission of the opinion testimony is not prejudicial error.

3. Facts tending to show the commission of a crime other than the one charged may be elicited from the defendant on cross-examination if those facts also tend to prove a material element of the crime charged. These facts, in so far as they are relevant to the crime charged, are admissible, and the defendant waives his privilege against self-incrimination concerning all facts relevant to the crime charged when he takes the stand.

4. After defendant had denied any specific intent to commit the crime charged, evidence of commission of another similar crime was properly received as rebuttal.

5. Evidence of commission of another crime was admissible because it was relevant to the issues of guilty knowledge and intent to commit the crime charged.

6. A trial court has no affirmative duty to call a witness on its own initiative where the testimony presented covers all facts necessary or essential to a determination of the disputed issues.

7. The right of confrontation by witnesses against the accused granted by the Minnesota Constitution does not require a trial court to call a potential witness on its own initiative.

John E. Simonett, Little Falls, for appellant.

Walter F. Mondale, Atty. Gen., J. Earl Cudd, Sol. Gen., Joseph P. Summers, Sp. Asst. Sol. Gen., St. Paul, Attell P. Felix, County Atty., Little Falls, for respondent.

ROGOSHESKE, Justice.

Defendant was convicted of robbery in the first degree committed on December 28, 1962, two miles north of Royalton, Minnesota. He appeals from the judgment.

The information charged that at the time and place stated, defendant, 'aided by an accomplice actually present, to-wit: 'Ralph Hines,' forcibly stole a station wagon automobile from the possession of Ira M. Burhans. Represented by appointed counsel, ¹ defendant had a preliminary hearing, and after arraignment before the district court waived a jury. After trial to the court, he was found guilty as charged.

This appeal presents questions of the sufficiency of the evidence and of errors claimed in the admission of certain evidence and in the court's denial of defendant's repeated requests to call Ralph Hines, the alleged accomplice and defendant's brother, who was awaiting sentence after a plea of guilty to a charge of second-degree robbery arising out of the same occurrence. The issues raised make it necessary to detail the evidence tending to support the court's decision.

On December 28, 1962, the automobile which defendant and his brother were driving ran out of gas and became stalled upon the crossover connecting the double lanes of four-lane Highway No. 10, two miles north of Royalton. As Mr. Burhans, driving his employer's red station wagon, approached from the north, he was waved to a stop. He stopped the station wagon about 150 feet south of the stalled vehicle, rolled down the front window, and asked what the trouble was. Although defendant denies it, Burhans testified that defendant, a stranger to him, was the first to come over to his car, saying that 'they were out of gas and would like a push into town.' Burhans also said that defendant 'smelled as if he had been drinking' and that he appeared to have been injured 'around the nose and mouth,' with an appearance of recent bleeding in that area. Because of these circumstances, Burhans declined the request, explaining that he didn't think it 'a good idea to push any one on a heavily traveled road.' As he was preparing to leave, Ralph came over when defendant 'hollered at' him and, in defendant's presence, grabbed Burhans by the shirt and said, 'This is a hold up. Don't try anything funny and you won't get hurt.' While this was happening, Burhans noticed a highway patrol car approaching from the south and called attention to it. He then related:

'* * * Ralph Hines looked over there and opened the car door and told me to get out and when I delayed getting out he pulled me out and got into the car himself. * * * As the police car pulled up Ralph Hines was pulling away from my car and I reached in and turned off the ignition, reached in to turn off the ignition but wasn't able to reach the ignition because Howard Hines behind me pulled me away and attempted to jump into the car.

'* * * Ralph Hines was driving the car and as the car was pulling away Howard Hines ran and jumped in but was unable to close the door, and * * * I ran up alongside of the car and pulled the door further open and grabbed Howard Hines * * * and pulled him out of the car.'

Immediately before Ralph drove off, going south, the highway officer, who had turned into the crossover from his northbound direction, was bringing the patrol car to a stop some distance behind the station wagon. As that car began to move away, the officer observed one man in the car, one trying to get in on the driver's side, and the third running alongside, pulling the second man from the car. When he walked up to the two men after the car had left, he heard defendant declare to Burhans that he was a hitchhiker unacquainted with the 'other fellow' and he 'didn't know what got into the other fellow.' Mr. Burhans then told the officer that his car was being stolen and that defendant had aided the thief. After listening to both men (defendant again professing his surprise and innocence), the officer ran to the patrol car and radioed for help. While he was so engaged, defendant fled, running across the road ditch, over railroad tracks, and into a field toward a barn, refusing to halt when twice commanded to do so by the officer. The officer pursued and finally caught him when defendant was unable to negotiate a fence. Following this, the three men got into the patrol car. While the officer was radioing further information about the stolen vehicle and requesting roadblocks, Mr. Burhans noticed the station wagon returning, approaching from the south. The patrol car crossed over to the other lane and gave chase, pursuing it at high speed with flashing lights and siren. The Burhans vehicle traveled north about a mile toward Little Falls, then, turning into a crossover, proceeded south past the stalled vehicle and was overtaken and forced to stop about a mile south of Royalton. Ralph was apprehended, handcuffed, and put into the patrol car, after which defendant asked Ralph 'what he was trying to do and Ralph shook his head,' refusing to answer questions. The officer ascertained from identifications furnished by them that Ralph and the defendant were brothers. When help arrived minutes afterward, they were separately taken to the county jail.

The foregoing summary of the testimony of Mr. Burhans and the officer completed the state's case in cheif. Defendant thereupon testified in his own defense. He insisted that Ralph, not he, first went over to the station wagon to 'get a ride into town or a push or something.' Defendant had been bleeding and claimed he desired medical attention. He testified that when Ralph and Mr. Burhans were out of the car, Ralph waved to him to come over. As he approached, they were talking but he did not hear what was said. Then--

'When I got up to the car Ralph got into the car and Mr. Burhans stood with his back to the door holding the door open and I proceeded to get in, and somehow just about the time I was going to start to get in, that is when he said something to me. I don't know his exact words, but I know he did grab me by the shirt sleeves and I was not quite all the way in the car because I couldn't get the door shut because I was in the car and the car started to move and pulled the door shut and I was hanging onto the wheel.'

He further testified that he did not expect the car to move. He denied that he tried to close the door or use force to escape from Mr. Burhans' grasp, explaining that when he had hold of the steering wheel and Mr. Burhans was trying to pull him from the car, he pushed back because he was 'afraid of falling and getting hurt.' He said, 'I was expecting that I would sit in the middle and my brother would be on the passenger side and Mr. Burhans would give us a ride into St. Cloud.' He denied any intention or knowledge of taking the station wagon and that he had any conversation with Mr. Burhans before being pulled from the car. Although he admitted fleeing, he insisted it was because of fear of being blamed for what Ralph had done after Mr. Burhans had accused him of assisting in the theft. He did not deny that he made statements to Mr. Burhans and the officer to the effect that he was a hitchhiker and unacquainted with Ralph.

On cross-examination, over objection, he admitted that the stalled vehicle belonged to a Mr. Quiggle. Although admitting that he had been injured, he refused to answer any questions concerning how and where he received the injuries, where he and his brother had come from, or how they obtained Mr. Quiggle's car, upon the ground that the answers would incriminate him. For the same reason he also refused to answer any questions concerning previous felony convictions.

The state then called Walter Quiggle, an employee of the State Reformatory. Over a continuing objection that this testimony was immaterial, irrelevant, and improper rebuttal, Mr. Quiggle testified that earlier in the day of the robbery he saw defendant and Ralph at the scene of an accident on Highway No. 10 about a mile south of St. Cloud. He learned...