State v. King
| Decision Date | 17 May 2023 |
| Docket Number | A19-0362,A22-0290 |
| Parties | State of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Noah Anthony Charles King, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Saint Louis County Office of Appellate Courts
Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Charles F. Clippert, Assistant State Public Defender, Saint Paul Minnesota, for appellant.
Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Ed Stockmeyer, Assistant Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota
Kimberly J.M. Kromatka, Saint Louis County Attorney, Duluth Minnesota, for respondent.
1. A recanting codefendant's prior inconsistent statement is properly admitted as substantive evidence if the statement meets the requirements of Minnesota Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(A).
2. When viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence presented at trial is sufficient to prove that a victim's death was a reasonably foreseeable result of the burglary when the perpetrators were armed and the defendant participated in planning the burglary.
3. The district court does not abuse its discretion in denying postconviction relief on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to communicate and explain an Alford plea when the petitioner does not present any substantive evidence other than their own assertions that such a plea offer was made.
4. When multiple offenses are alleged in the charging instrument, Minnesota Statute section 609.035, subdivision 1 (2022), does not prohibit the district court from finding the defendant not guilty of some charges but guilty of the remaining charges.
5. A challenge to an indictment is forfeited if not raised before trial; absent a showing of good cause, the appellate court will not review the issue.
6. When viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence presented at trial is sufficient to prove that the defendant committed first-degree felony murder under an aiding and abetting theory of criminal liability.
Following a bench trial, appellant Noah Anthony Charles King was convicted of first-degree felony murder under an aiding and abetting theory of criminal liability. King filed a direct appeal that we stayed so he could pursue postconviction relief. In his postconviction petition, King alleged a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. After holding an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied King's postconviction petition. King appealed. We lifted the stay and consolidated King's appeals. In his principal brief, King challenges the admission of a recanting codefendant's prior inconsistent statement, the sufficiency of the State's evidence, and the denial of his postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. In a pro se supplemental brief, King raises three additional arguments. Because we conclude that King's arguments do not entitle him to any relief, we affirm.
On February 14, 2017, William Grahek was fatally shot during a burglary in the basement of his home in Duluth. Grahek's brother heard the gunshots and called the police. Following an investigation, the police concluded that Noah Baker Deandre Davenport, and King broke into Grahek's home with the intent to rob Grahek, and when Grahek resisted, he was fatally shot.
The State charged King with second-degree intentional murder under Minn. Stat. § 609.19, subd. 1 (2022), and first-degree attempted aggravated robbery under Minn. Stat. § 609.245, subd. 1 (2022), alleging aiding and abetting theories of criminal liability under Minn. Stat. § 609.05 (2022). A grand jury subsequently indicted King for first-degree felony murder while attempting to commit aggravated robbery under Minn. Stat. § 609.185(a)(3) (2022) and first-degree felony murder while committing burglary under Minn. Stat. § 609.185(a)(3), alleging aiding and abetting theories of criminal liability under Minn. Stat. § 609.05. King moved to dismiss the indictment for lack of probable cause and the district court denied his motion.[1]
Meanwhile, Baker pleaded guilty to second-degree murder pursuant to a plea agreement.[2] As part of his plea, Baker admitted the following facts. Baker was close friends with Davenport and King. In January 2017, Davenport told Baker and King that Grahek kept drugs in his home, which was located across the alley from King's home. Based on this information, the three men decided to rob Grahek.
In February 14, 2017, in accordance with their plan, Baker and Davenport parked a white Jeep down the street from King's home and then walked to King's home where the three men changed into black clothing and armed themselves-Baker and Davenport each carried handguns, and King carried a large wrench. After the men kicked in the doors to Grahek's home, Davenport pointed his gun at Grahek and ordered him to get down, Baker also aimed his gun at Grahek, and King stood behind them. When Grahek did not drop to the floor, Davenport fatally shot him, at which point the three men ran from Grahek's house, reconvened at the white Jeep, and drove to Baker and Davenport's shared residence. On the way, they took their clothing off and put it in a trash bag. Baker's sister drove King back to his home in the white Jeep shortly after the men arrived at the Baker/Davenport residence. Baker burned their clothes the next day, and then Baker and Davenport went to a motel in Superior, Wisconsin, where they met up with another friend. Baker gave the gun he used in the burglary to this friend, and Davenport sold the gun he carried to someone else. Based on the above-described facts, the district court accepted Baker's guilty plea.
In October 2018, six months after Baker's guilty plea, King waived his right to a jury trial. At the ensuing bench trial, the State presented testimony from several witnesses, including the investigating police officers, the medical examiner, and Baker's sister. When the State called Baker to testify, he recanted his plea-hearing testimony, claiming he committed the murder alone. When the State offered Baker's plea transcript as a trial exhibit, defense counsel objected. The district court overruled the objection and admitted the transcript as substantive, non-hearsay evidence under Minnesota Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(A).
After considering the evidence presented at the bench trial, the district court made the following findings of fact. King lived directly across the alley from Grahek. Davenport learned that Grahek kept drugs and money in a safe in Grahek's basement bedroom. On February 14, 2017, King used his girlfriend's phone to contact Davenport throughout the day, both before and after Grahek's murder. Baker and Davenport approached King's house around 1:26 p.m. after they parked a white Jeep down the street from King's house. Baker and Davenport entered through the back door of King's house and then the three men left the house together through the back door.
Grahek's brother heard a loud bang from the basement followed by an unfamiliar voice yelling "get down on the ground." Within moments, Grahek's brother heard two or three gunshots. Grahek's brother called the police at 2:00 p.m. At 1:59 p.m. the white Jeep travelled away from Grahek's house at a "high rate of speed."
A portion of the fatal bullet was salvaged from Grahek's body and sent to the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) for testing. Police also collected spent and unfired cartridges from Grahek's basement. Officers called a canine tracking officer and his dog after they found fresh shoe prints in the snow leading away from Grahek's house.
At 2:16 p.m. Baker's sister drove the white Jeep to drop King off at the Cenex station across the street from King's house. About an hour and a half after King initially left with Baker and Davenport, he returned to his home. Before he left the house again, King asked his girlfriend to delete calls he made from her cell phone that day.
The police canine tracked a scent associated with the shoe prints at Grahek's residence to the alley, across the alley to King's fenced in yard, and from the rear of King's home to the front porch where the canine refused to leave, indicating that the scent's owner entered the front of the residence. The shoe prints from Grahek's yard matched the tread pattern of the shoe prints on the steps at King's home.
While the canine tracked the shoe prints and scent, officers saw King leave his home through the front door and walk to the Cenex. Officers briefly spoke with King at the Cenex. King then returned home and told his girlfriend to tell the police that he was home all day. When the canine finished tracking the scent from the crime scene to the front door of King's residence, officers knocked and asked King to step outside. During this second conversation with police, King had changed out of the shoes he wore to the Cenex and instead wore a pair of boots.
After the burglary and murder, Baker and Davenport went to a motel in Superior, Wisconsin, where they burned their clothing, and each handed their handguns off to other friends. Police witnessed one of these friends arrive at and leave the motel, and the police obtained a warrant for that friend's home where they located the handgun. The BCA confirmed that the spent casings recovered from Grahek's residence were fired and ejected from this handgun.
Based on its findings of fact, the district court found King guilty of second-degree intentional murder, and first-degree felony murder while committing a burglary, both under aiding and abetting theories of criminal liability. The district court found King not guilty of the remaining charges.
King appealed his conviction in March 2019. We granted King's motion to stay his direct appeal to allow him to pursue postconviction relief....
To continue reading
Request your trial