State v. Jackson

• Decision Date: 06 July 2022
• Docket Number: A20-0779
• Parties: STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Rodney Donta JACKSON, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

977 N.W.2d 169

STATE of Minnesota, Respondent,
v.
Rodney Donta JACKSON, Appellant.

A20-0779

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Filed: July 6, 2022

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota; and Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Brittany D. Lawonn, Assistant County Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for respondent.

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Julie Loftus Nelson, Assistant State Public Defender, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for appellant.

OPINION

ANDERSON, Justice.

This dispute concerns the proper remedy for a violation of a criminal defendant's asserted constitutional right to a public trial during part of a post-trial Schwartz hearing.¹ After a jury found appellant

977 N.W.2d 171

guilty of second-degree murder, one of the jurors provided feedback suggesting that she might have introduced extraneous information during deliberations. To assess the effect of this information on the verdict of the jury, the district court held a Schwartz hearing, which was divided into two parts because of scheduling conflicts of two jurors. To ensure the testimony of the first two jurors did not influence the remaining jurors, the court ordered the first part of the Schwartz hearing closed to the public. After all the jurors testified, the court found that the extraneous information did not impact the verdict. Concluding that the district court erred when it closed the first part of the Schwartz hearing to the public, the court of appeals remanded to the district court to have the two jurors who testified in private questioned again in a public hearing. Because the remand order of the court of appeals is appropriate, we affirm.

FACTS

On November 6, 2018, appellant Rodney Donta Jackson and his girlfriend drove to a gas station and convenience store in South Minneapolis. After parking, other vehicles blocked his car by parking in front of, and behind, Jackson's car. Jackson's girlfriend asked the occupants of the car parked in front, M.A. and a passenger, to move their car so that she and Jackson could leave. M.A. refused, and an altercation ensued. According to Jackson, M.A. and his passenger were rude and made violent threats. The passenger testified that Jackson repeatedly hit their car with his own vehicle and made violent threats. A bystander testified that he convinced M.A. and his passenger to disengage and go into the store but that Jackson's girlfriend started throwing objects. Jackson's girlfriend admitted throwing a container of Vaseline. The bystander arranged for the car behind Jackson to move, and Jackson and his girlfriend left the gas station. But after leaving, Jackson's girlfriend told Jackson that she wanted to retrieve something she had dropped. Jackson parked across the street and his girlfriend returned to the gas station. There, she threw a can at M.A.’s car. M.A. retaliated by throwing rocks at Jackson's girlfriend, who screamed and ran back to Jackson's car. Jackson heard the scream and saw his girlfriend running back to his car, pursued by M.A. Jackson, who had a valid permit to carry a handgun, drew his gun and fired a single shot at M.A. The shot struck M.A. in the head, killing him. Jackson and his girlfriend then drove away, ate at a restaurant, and went to see a movie. They were arrested leaving the movie theater.

The State charged Jackson with first-degree premeditated murder under Minn. Stat. § 609.185(a)(1) (2020), and second-degree intentional murder under Minn. Stat. § 609.19, subd. 1(1) (2020). The trial occurred between October 21 and November 1, 2019. The State presented eyewitness testimony and security camera footage

977 N.W.2d 172

of the incident. Jackson admitted to firing the shot that killed M.A. But Jackson testified that he saw M.A. holding a gun and claimed that he fired in self-defense. No other witnesses reported seeing M.A. armed, no weapon was found on the scene, and no witnesses reported seeing anyone touching M.A.’s body or removing anything from the scene.

The district court instructed the jury on the elements of a self-defense claim, including that "the judgment of the defendant as to the gravity of the peril to which he or another is exposed must have been reasonable under the circumstances" and that "there was no reasonable possibility of retreat to avoid the danger." The jury found Jackson guilty of second-degree intentional murder and not guilty of first-degree premeditated murder.

At the request of the district court, the jurors provided post-trial anonymous written feedback regarding their experience as jurors. One juror stated that the State should have "[p]resented info on conceal [and] carry—responsibility of self-defense. Should have explained what [Jackson] would have learned in conceal and carry class regarding MN law about obligation to retreat. This jury was going for self defense and not guilty before I shared what's taught in permit class." Jackson moved for a post-trial Schwartz hearing based on the statements made by the juror, arguing that the statements were extraneous information that could have prejudiced the jury.

The district court granted Jackson's motion from the bench on November 26, 2019, and scheduled a Schwartz hearing for January 17, 2020. The court cautioned Jackson and the State not to contact the jurors to avoid potentially influencing the testimony. And the court noted that members of the press were present in the courtroom and asked that no reporting on the hearing occur, also to avoid influencing the jurors who would testify.

On December 16, 2019, the district court told the parties that, despite the court's request, a local newspaper had published a story about the potential juror misconduct and at least one juror reported reading the story. Further, the court had learned that two of the jurors would be out of the country on the day of the January 17, 2020 hearing: one would be on a week-long vacation and the...