State v. Hohenwald, No. A10–1986.
| Citation | 815 N.W.2d 823 |
| Decision Date | 11 July 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. A10–1986. |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Craig Matthew HOHENWALD, Appellant. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court
1. An order suspending the criminal proceedings pursuant to Minn. R.Crim. P. 20.01 did not invalidate the grand jury's subsequent indictment for first-degree premeditated murder.
2. The record contains sufficient evidence to support the district court's verdict that the appellant was guilty of the offense of first-degree premeditated murder rather than heat-of-passion manslaughter.
3. The unobjected-to prosecutorial errors did not affect the appellant's substantial rights.
4. The district court's admission of a witness's out-of-court statement was harmless.
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, John B. Galus, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, MN; and Amy K. Brosnahan, Kanabec County Attorney, Mora, MN, for respondent.
David W. Merchant, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Michael F. Cromett, Assistant State Public Defender, St. Paul, MN, for appellant.
After the State filed a criminal complaint against appellant Craig Matthew Hohenwald charging him with four counts of second-degree murder, a grand jury indicted Hohenwald on two counts of first-degree premeditated murder, Minn.Stat. § 609.185(a)(1) (2010), two counts of first-degree felony murder, Minn.Stat. § 609.185(a)(3) (2010), and two counts of second-degree murder, Minn.Stat. § 609.19, subd. 1(1) (2010), while the criminal proceedings against him were suspended to assess his competency under Minn. R.Crim. P. 20.01. Following a bench trial, the district court convicted Hohenwald on both counts of first-degree premeditated murder. On appeal, Hohenwald challenges his convictions on four grounds. First, he asserts that the district court erred when it denied his motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the State conducted the grand jury proceedings in violation of Rule 20.01. Second, he claims that the record contains insufficient evidence to convict him of first-degree premeditated murder because the State failed to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted in the heat of passion. Third, he argues the prosecutor committed misconduct during witness questioning. Fourth, he contends the district court committed reversible error when it admitted a witness's out-of-court statement. We affirm Hohenwald's convictions.
Following a bench trial, the district court convicted Hohenwald of the first-degree premeditated murders of Larry and Lois Steenerson. The events in question occurred on February 8, 2009, at the Steenerson residence in Kanabec County, Minnesota. The killings apparently related to a dispute over farm property that the Steenersons had previously sold to the Hohenwald family. Eleven days before the murder, the Steenersons had obtained a preliminary attachment order against the farm in connection with a lawsuit alleging that the Hohenwalds had defaulted on various notes and mortgages relating to the sale. Although the Steenersons did not personally name Hohenwald as a defendant in the lawsuit, Hohenwald's girlfriend testified that Hohenwald was “irritated” that someone was trying to take the farm away from his family. In fact, Hohenwald admitted to his girlfriend that he consumed alcohol on the day of the murder “because of the stress of the family farm and everything.”
On the day in question, Hohenwald contacted J.S., a woman with whom he had previously spent time on a few occasions. Hohenwald sent J.S. text messages asking if she was up for a crazy night and discussing “10 Gs,” a reference that J.S. thought related to the use of illicit drugs. After the exchange of text messages, J.S. picked up Hohenwald and began to drive to a house used for ice fishing. On the way, however, Hohenwald asked J.S. to stop at the Steenerson residence because he wanted to take care of “something going on with his family.”
Hohenwald and J.S. arrived at the Steenerson residence at approximately 10:20 p.m. J.S. parked her car in front of the Steenersons' garage. At first, both Hohenwald and J.S. got out of the car, but J.S. testified that Hohenwald told her to return to the car. J.S. denied entering the Steenerson residence, claiming instead that she listened to music and played with her cell phone after returning to the car.
At 10:26 p.m., the Kanabec County Sheriff's Department received the first in a series of 911 calls from the Steenerson residence. The first three calls disconnected before the caller spoke. Approximately twenty-five seconds after the first call, a fourth 911 call was made in which Lois Steenerson stated that “somebody's robbing us, they've shot, there's guns out here.” The 911 dispatcher advised Lois to go somewhere safe, but she replied, “I can't, he, he stabbed me,” and then the telephone call disconnected. When the dispatcher reestablished the 911 call about two minutes later, Larry Steenerson answered, “They're trying to kill us here Craig, Craig Hohenwald.” The dispatcher then heard three loud yells and the sounds of a struggle, glass breaking, and a door shutting. At that point, a deputy who responded to the 911 calls pulled into the driveway of the Steenerson residence. The deputy saw Hohenwald run from the house and enter the passenger side of J.S.'s car.
When Hohenwald entered J.S.'s car, he said “let's go.” J.S. placed the car in reverse and was about to head down the driveway when she spotted the deputy's squad car approaching. After the deputy arrived, he ordered both J.S. and Hohenwald to get out of the car and lie down on the ground. The deputy observed blood all over Hohenwald's arms and head and witnessed Hohenwald removing a pair of leather gloves soaked in blood.
Inside the house, officers found Larry Steenerson's body in a basement office. An emergency medical technician pronounced Larry dead at the scene. A medical examiner later determined that Larry suffered 28 sharp force wounds to his body, including stab wounds to his left jugular vein, his esophagus, and his upper left chest and lung. The medical examiner also found multiple blunt force injuries and abrasions on Larry's body. Officers found Lois Steenerson covered in blood and taking shallow breaths in an upstairs bedroom. Lois was pronounced dead shortly after arriving at a nearby hospital. Lois's autopsy showed that she suffered eight sharp force wounds, including stab wounds to her left jugular vein and upper back. The medical examiner concluded that both Larry and Lois died from exsanguination (loss of blood), and that the manner of death for both was homicide.
At the scene, officers recovered a wooden-handled knife several yards behind J.S.'s car. Officers also found a blood-stained, black-handled knife, with its blade bent at a 50–degree angle, in a doorway adjacent to the basement office where officers found Larry's body. Inside the basement office, there was a knife scabbard on the floor and a significant amount of blood on and in front of a roll-top desk. In the family room (across from the basement office), officers recovered a broken spotlight covered with Larry's hair and blood. In a wall at the top of the stairs leading from the basement to the entryway of the residence, officers discovered a bullet hole, the angle of which indicated that someone had fired a bullet at an upward trajectory toward the entryway. Officers also retrieved an empty .22 revolver in a hamper outside of the upstairs bedroom and a .357 revolver under the passenger seat of J.S.'s car. The parties later stipulated at trial that Larry Steenerson had purchased, and presumably still owned, both guns.
DNA testing of the blood recovered from the scene of the murder showed Larry Steenerson's blood on both knives, on the grip of the .357 revolver, on the passenger side of J.S.'s car, and on Hohenwald's clothes and body. There were also stains of Larry's blood in the office, the family room, the stairwell, and on the door handle to the upstairs bedroom. Lois Steenerson's blood was not found on either of the two knives, nor was blood from either victim found on J.S.'s clothes or the driver's side of J.S.'s car.
Hohenwald testified to the following facts at trial. Hohenwald decided to stop by the Steenerson residence on February 8, 2009, to “see if we could work something out.” After entering the Steenerson residence with J.S., Hohenwald began a discussion with Larry. Although Hohenwald may have sworn at Larry during the conversation, he did not shout at him. The two of them spoke for a few minutes and then Larry stated that he needed to retrieve something from downstairs. Shortly thereafter, Larry returned with a gun and shot at Hohenwald. Hohenwald then grabbed for the gun and the two men struggled with one another, eventually falling down the stairs. At some point, Hohenwald hit Larry with the spotlight in the family room, causing Larry to let go of the gun. Hohenwald then ran into the office, grabbed the black-handled knife from the desk, and stabbed Larry. After Hohenwald bent the knife from stabbing Larry, he threw it down and ran out of the house. Hohenwald denied ever seeing Lois Steenerson, stabbing her, or going into the upstairs portion of the house.
On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Hohenwald why he did not retreat after Larry let go of the gun. Hohenwald responded, Hohenwald conceded, however, that he was upset, that he was angry at Larry, and that it “makes sense” that he wanted to “get” Larry for shooting at him. During his testimony, Hohenwald also admitted to writing a note discovered by jail personnel during a routine search of his jail cell. The note stated: “Fight Pushed down Ran up 4 Phone ran Back G Pointed fought crazy.”
The district court, sitting as the finder of fact, found that Hohenwald intentionally killed both Larry and Lois Steenerson. The court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Little
...burden of demonstrating prejudice generally falls on the party seeking relief. See Davis, 820 N.W.2d at 535. But see State v. Hohenwald, 815 N.W.2d 823, 834–35 (Minn.2012) (placing the burden on the State to show the absence of prejudice to the defendant in cases involving prosecutorial mis......
-
Dereje v. State, A11–1147.
...court rules in accordance with the rules of grammar and give words and phrases their common and approved usage.” State v. Hohenwald, 815 N.W.2d 823, 829 (Minn.2012). “When considering the plain and ordinary meaning of words or phrases, we have considered dictionary definitions.” State v. He......
-
Eason v. State, A19-1664
...most favorable to Eason, they would not provoke a person of ordinary self-control under like circumstances. See State v. Hohenwald , 815 N.W.2d 823, 834 n.5 (Minn. 2012). Our precedent is instructive on this issue.We have previously determined that the victim's act of shooting the defendant......
-
Gams v. Houghton
...of law under Rule 5.04(a) would still be a “proceeding” and so would fall within the coverage of Rule 60.02. See State v. Hohenwald, 815 N.W.2d 823, 830 (Minn.2012) (“The word ‘proceedings' generally refers to ‘the course of procedure in a judicial action or in a suit in litigation’....”). ......