State v. Hyleck

• Citation: 175 N.W.2d 163,286 Minn. 126
• Decision Date: 06 February 1970
• Docket Number: No. 41656,41656
• Parties: STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Jo A. HYLECK, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 163

175 N.W.2d 163

286 Minn. 126

STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Jo A. HYLECK, Appellant.

No. 41656.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Feb. 6, 1970.

Rehearing Denied March 4, 1970.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The evidence is sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict of guilty of second-degree murder.

2. The search of defendant's home, conducted without a warrant, was proper in view of the defendant's voluntary consent. The incriminating evidence found in that search was therefore admissible.

3. It was improper for the trial judge to allow the prosecutor to introduce, by way of cross-examination of defendant, innuendoes of prior misconduct by him. State v. Flowers, 262 Minn. 164, 114 N.W.2d 78. However, this error was not prejudicial because the improper questioning comprised only a few minutes in a month-long trial, did not constitute--even assuming the truth of the implications--substantial proof against defendant, and was partly rectified by defense counsel's argument to the jury.

4. If there was evidence from which a jury could find that defendant killed his 5. There was no deprivation of due process or reversible error in the prosecution's failure to bring to the court's attention certain evidence which became available one hour before the jury returned. The evidence, consisting of the statements of two boys that they followed the ambulance to defendant's home the night of the murder and stayed for a new minutes after their arrival there, is so factually dissimilar from defendant's testimony that he saw a mysterious stranger just after the body was discovered that it is highly questionable whether defendant's credibility would have been enhanced by the introduction of the boys' testimony. Also, the late-discovered evidence was of little, if any, independent substantive value, being merely repetitious of other witnesses' testimony. Whatever small effect the boys' testimony would have had on the case against defendant, it falls far short of the essentials necessary to justify a new trial.

wife with intent but without premeditation, the submission of an instruction covering second-degree murder was proper. State v. Pankrantz, 238 Minn. 517, 57 N.W.2d 635. The jury could have found that defendant murdered his wife with intent but without premeditation because, even though the medical experts uniformly concluded that there was a few minutes' span between the time she was struck in the eye and the time the first death blow was inflicted, we have repeatedly stated that premeditation is not a coefficient of time and can never be presumed from a given factual setting.

C. Paul Jones, Public Defender, Ronald L. Haskvitz, Asst. Public Defender, Minneapolis, for appellant.

Douglas M. Head, Atty. Gen., Richard H. Kyle, Solicitor Gen., St. Paul, John C. Arko, County Atty., James J. Bang, Asst. County Atty., Duluth, for respondent.

OPINION

PETERSON, Justice.

On the night of February 15, 1968, Leona Hyleck, the 53-year-old wife of defendant, Jo A. Hyleck, a Duluth businessman, was killed. A grand jury indicted defendant for the crime of first-degree murder, and, after a month-long trial, a jury returned a verdict of guilty of second-degree murder. Minn.St. 609.19. Defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction. While that appeal was pending, the matter was remanded for postconviction proceedings. Relief was denied by order entered at the close of those postconviction proceedings. We affirm the order and the judgment of the district court.

1. Defendant's first claim is that the evidence does not sustain the jury's verdict of guilty of murder. Because the evidence is entirely circumstantial, we must review the factual record in some detail. The murder victim, the defendant, and their 13-year-old daughter, Pamela Hyleck, had dinner together in their comfortable Duluth home about 5:30 p.m. on February 15. After dinner, the daughter went upstairs to do her homework. Between 7:30 and 8 p.m. the defendant went down to his basement workshop and began working on a home-improvement project. At 9 p.m. he came upstairs to make some measurements, staying long enough to help his wife with a jigsaw puzzle and watch part of a regularly scheduled television program which ended at 10 p.m. Pamela stated that she went to bed shortly after this program was over and fell asleep shortly before 11 p.m. The only sound she heard that night was the movement of the door in the kitchen that leads to the basement.

Defendant testified that after Pamela went to bed he returned to his workshop. About 1 1/2 to 2 hours later, the defendant claims, he heard the family dog barking on the front porch. He went up and let the dog in. It was then that he noticed that his wife was not present. He began looking for her in the neighborhood, but after 20 minutes and no success, he returned home. He called the home of Judge Donald Anderson to see if Mrs. Hyleck was there. Judge Anderson answered and said that she was not. Defendant claims that he again went outside to look. Failing to find her, he again called the Andersons for assistance in locating his wife. This time Mrs. Lois Anderson told defendant that she would come right over. (They lived only a few doors away.) After she hung up, her daughter and husband agreed to join the search.

The state produced no direct evidence as to defendant's activities between the time that Pamela went to bed and the time Mrs. Anderson arrived at the Hyleck home at approximately 12:10 a.m. Mrs. Anderson had walked over while the judge and his 20-year-old daughter, Barbara, cruised the neighborhood in separate automobiles. The testimony of the Andersons does confirm, however, defendant's claim that he made two telephone calls. Defendant met Lois Anderson at the door and as they went inside he began to cry, saying, according to Mrs. Anderson, 'I'm so upset, I'm so worried, I'm afraid something may have happened to her.' When asked if he had looked around the house, defendant replied, 'A little bit.' Mrs. Anderson decided to make another short search in the area. Almost immediately after leaving the house, she found Leona Hyleck lying face down in the snow in the backyard. Because there was little light and because Lois Anderson came to within only 3 feet of the body, she was unable to realize the magnitude of the victim's wounds.

Later examination by medical experts revealed that there was massive skull damage. There was a 4 1/2-inch cut that went down the centerline of the skull from the vertex or top of the skull to the back or occipital area. A second linear defect just to the left and parallel to the centerline was 3 1/2 inches in length. The third slash was the longest, 6 1/2 inches. This was to the right of the centerline and extended from the midpoint or the vertex back to the occipital area. There was little or no bruising or tearing of the scalp next to the slashes, implying that the weapon had a sharp edge. The weapon actually entered the skull 2 or 3 inches, because bony fragments were found that far within the skull. The sheerness of the fractures and their position on the skull indicate that the head was not in motion when the blows were struck. That the victim remained stationary while the death blows were inflicted is perhaps explained by Leona Hyleck's black eye. The jury could have believed that she was struck in the face and knocked unconscious, placed in the position in which she was found, and then bludgeoned to death.

At the trial, physicians testified that the puffing which was found around Mrs. Hyleck's left eye had to have begun at least a few minutes before death, because the edematous fluid which creates the swelling requires blood pressure, and death almost immediately diminishes this pressure. None of the medical witnesses was willing to state that the blows to the back of the head could have caused the swelling and discoloration around the eye. The St. Louis County coroner testified that in his opinion the damage to the left eye was caused by a fist; however, he said that in looking over defendant's hands that night he did not find any marks or discoloration.

Mrs. Anderson testified that when she told defendant that his wife was lying in the backyard, defendant ran to within the same distance of the body that Mrs. Anderson had, then ran back to the house to call a doctor and an ambulance, a task which, considering the emotion of the moment, Mrs. Anderson felt she was more capable of carrying out. Through the operator she reached an ambulance and the Duluth police. The latter's log shows that the call came at 12:15 a.m.

Defendant and Mrs. Anderson then went to the front sidewalk (the defendant grabbing a coat and a flashlight as he went through the house) to flag down Judge Anderson. The judge gave his wife a blanket, with which Mrs. Anderson covered Mrs. Hyleck. Defendant remained on the sidewalk while Mrs. Anderson returned to the victim and while she went to the Gehrt home next door to get assistance. It was Jerry Gehrt who, with the aid of a flashlight, was the first to realize the gravity of the wounds. Mr. Gehrt testified that even from the front sidewalk the body could be seen, as a dark form, in the backyard.

Those persons who came before the police and ambulance arrived concur in the conclusion that at no time did defendant return to his wife's side, though Mrs. Anderson did once advise him against going to the backyard. The jury was entitled to believe that in those moments following discovery of the body, defendant was strangely rational in his self-protective actions but unusually hesitant to go to the aid of his wife, whose dire condition was not revealed until later. Jerry Gehrt testified that defendant came over to him when they were standing on the sidewalk and said, 'Jerry, please help me. For God's sake, help me.'

After the ambulance arrived, defendant, Mrs. Anderson and her daughter, and Mrs. Gehrt went into the house. Immediately, defendant walked to...