State v. Jones

• Decision Date: 05 October 1978
• Docket Number: No. 47806.,47806.
• Citation: State v. Jones, 271 N.W.2d 534 (Minn. 1978)
• Parties: STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Johnny JONES a.k.a. John Quincy Jones, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

271 N.W.2d 534 (1978)

STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v.Johnny JONES a.k.a. John Quincy Jones, Appellant.

No. 47806.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

August 18, 1978.

Rehearing Denied October 5, 1978.

C. Paul Jones, Public Defender, Minneapolis, for appellant.

Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., William Randall, County Atty., Steven DeCoster, Asst. County Atty., St. Paul, for respondent.

Considered and decided by the court without oral argument.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was charged with one count of second-degree murder and one count of third-degree murder in the September 6, 1976, shooting death of George Carlson in St. Paul.A Ramsey County District Court jury found defendant guilty of the lesser of the two offenses and the court sentenced him to a term of 3 to 25 years in prison, Minn.St. 609.11 and 609.195.On this appeal from judgment of conviction defendant contends (1) that the evidence of his guilt was legally insufficient, (2) that the trial court erred in denying a pretrial motion to limitthe prosecutor's impeachment of defendant by prior conviction, with the result that defendant was compelled to forego testifying in his own behalf, (3) that the trial court denied defendant a fair trial by injecting himself into the trial in an improper manner, and (4) that the trial court erred in its instructions on the issue of self defense.We reverse and remand for a new trial.

On Labor Day, September 6, 1976, defendant worked the late afternoon-early evening shift at his job as a mechanic for Burlington-Northern.After getting off work defendant apparently got in his car and began to drive to his apartment in the new apartment complex at 314-329Congress Street.Defendant and the woman he was living with, Sharon Adams, along with two of his three children, had just moved into the apartment a few days earlier.At about 10:30 p. m., as he was driving in his car in a southerly direction on the Lafayette Freeway, defendant had a minor collision with the car of the victim, George Carlson.Because Carlson is deceased, there is no way of knowing for sure what happened.However, defendant told police officers that Carlson sped up and slowed down to prevent him from getting into the right lane and onto the exit ramp at Concord Street.Later examination of the two cars by a criminalist revealed fresh damage to the right fender of defendant's car and the left rear of Carlson's car, evidence which is at least consistent with defendant's version.

Defendant later told the police that he had chased Carlson's car from the exit ramp to the corner of Ada and Robie Street.According to defendant, Carlson got out at that point and fired two shots at him from a .22-caliber semi-automatic handgun.There appears to be no doubt that Carlson fired two shots, although we do not know for sure if he actually fired at defendant.We say this because (a) later examination of Carlson's right hand showed traces of lead consistent with his having fired a gun, (b) Carlson's gun, an 8-shooter, had five live rounds in the clip and one in the chamber when it was examined by police, and (c) three different people living near this corner heard two shots which sounded like shots from a .22-caliber gun.One of these neighbors saw defendant's car back up the entire length of the block at a relatively high speed and take off for his apartment.

It was about this time that a third person, a contractor named Armond Winter, came upon Carlson, who was standing by his car, and talked with him.We do not know what was said, but after talking with Carlson, Winter looked and saw defendant's car about a block away.Winter followed defendant and observed him drive into the parking lot of the apartment complex in which defendant lived.Winter then drove back to where Carlson was, told him where defendant's car had gone, and told him that he would call the police and that Carlson should drive to that lot and wait until the police arrived.

Meanwhile, defendant had arrived at the lot where he sat in his car for a minute or two.He later told the police that when he got out he checked his car for bullet holes, then took his rifle from the trunk of his car and walked toward the building.Martin Trulsen, a student at the University of Minnesota, was leaving after visiting some friends when he saw defendant get out and walk toward the building.Trulsen did not testify whether or not he had seen defend ant carry a weapon.However, Sharon Adams testified that defendant generally kept his rifle in the trunk of the car in the daytime so that the kids would not use it, but took it in at night.

Apparently as defendant was about to enter the building, Carlson drove into the lot and parked his car in such a way that it would be difficult for anyone to get out.Defendant later said that he decided he did not want "this guy" to "mess" with his family and kids, so he got back in his car and tried to leave but Carlson blocked his way.Trulsen by then was in his car and was driving right behind defendant.Trulsen was listening to music from his tape deck and did not hear exactly what was said, but after 30 seconds or so he saw defendant get out of his car carrying the gun and could tell that there were "intense" words.One neighbor heard defendant say, "Get out mother fucker."Neither Trulsen or this neighbor knew whether Carlson said anything and neither of them or anyone else other than defendant saw Carlson, so we really do not know what, if anything, Carlson said or did.We do know that defendant walked to the front of his car, which was head-on with Carlson's, raised the gun and aimed it, then put it in a hip position.Trulsen, the only person other than the victim who observed everything defendant did, testified that defendant stood for about 30 seconds by the left front of Carlson's car, continued to order Carlson out, and then fired one shot from the hip position.The shot went through the front windshield and struck Carlson, who fell forward against his horn.Defendant then walked toward the apartment and yelled to Sharon Adams to call an ambulance, call the police, and call Nilva (possibly his attorney) because he had shot somebody who had been shooting at him out on the freeway.

The police arrived within minutes after the shooting.The caretaker testified that she observed defendant flag the police down as they arrived, but the police did not corroborate this.Defendant was slow in putting his rifle down.The officers ordered defendant to lie down on the ground, face down.Defendant's girl friend, who was outside by then, pointed to the victim's car.As one of the policemen approached Carlson's car, defendant yelled to the officer that Carlson had a gun.The officer found Carlson dying.In the backseat the officers found the gun which Carlson had fired earlier.

After placing defendant in the squad car and giving him a Miranda warning, one of the officers talked to defendant, and defendant related his version of what happened.Asked why he shot, defendant replied that he shot at him because the man "moved funny" and he did not want to be shot at by the man again.Asked what he meant by "funny,"defendant replied "Just funny."The officers asked him if the man pointed a gun at him or raised his hands up, and defendant replied that he"just moved funny."

Defendant was found guilty of third-degree murder, specifically, unintentionally killing Carlson while committing an aggravated assault upon him.

1.The most important of the issues relating to the conduct of the trial is the issue of the trial court's denial of the pretrial motion to limit impeachment.

Defendant's trial counsel first moved at the Rasmussen hearing to limit the prosecutor's impeachment of defendant by prior convictions at trial.Defendant's prior convictions include the following: a 1960 conviction in Oklahoma for second-degree rape, a 1961 conviction in Missouri for theft, a 1964 conviction for simple assault in Minneapolis (aiming a gun at a person), a 1965 conviction for aggravated assault in Minneapolis, and a 1971 conviction for simple assault in St. Paul.Defense counsel argued basically that all of the convictions were too remote to have any conceivable relevance to the issue of defendant's credibility with the exception of the 1971 conviction for simple assault; he urged the court to bar the prosecutor from cross-examining defendant about all but the one conviction.The trial court, at defense counsel's request, reexamined State v. Stewart,297 Minn. 57, 209 N.W.2d 913(1973), in which this court in the interests of justice reversed a conviction where the prosecutor had cross-examined a defendant about an 8-year-old burglary conviction.However, the trial court distinguished the Stewart case and denied the motion, stating that he felt that the general rule, reaffirmed in State v. West,285 Minn. 188, 173 N.W.2d 468(1969), required him to leave to the prosecutor the decision whether to use the prior convictions to impeach defendant.

The defense counsel raised the issue once again at the conclusion of the state's evidence, also raising a new point, specifically, that two of defendant's prior convictions, the 1960 and the 1961 ones, were convictions obtained while defendant was unrepresented by counsel.Defense counsel argued that because of this at least these two convictions could not be used to impeach defendant.The trial court stated that counsel was too late in raising this point and on that ground denied this part of defendant's motion.(Defendant does not raise this issue on appeal.)Additionally, the trial court again read the Stewart case and again denied the broad motion to suppress as too old and therefore irrelevant all the convictions but the one obtained in 1971.In doing so, the court stated again that he felt he did not have any discretion in the matter.Defense counsel then informed the court that under the circumstances defendant would not take the stand and testify in his...