State v. Montano, A20-0756

Decision Date24 March 2021
Docket NumberA20-0756
Citation956 N.W.2d 643
Parties STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. James Francis MONTANO, Appellant.
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Peter Magnuson, Assistant Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota; and Lauri A. Ketola, Carlton County Attorney, Carlton, Minnesota, for respondent.

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Jessica Merz Godes, Assistant State Public Defender, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for appellant.

OPINION

HUDSON, Justice.

We are asked to decide here whether the district court abused its discretion when it denied a request for an accomplice-testimony jury instruction under Minnesota Statutes section 634.04 (2020), and whether any of appellant James Montano's pro se claims merit relief. Montano was charged with first-degree premeditated murder of Andrew Gokee and attempted first-degree premeditated murder of Gokee's son, Hudson Gauthier. Montano requested an accomplice-testimony jury instruction under Minn. Stat. § 634.04, arguing that the jury could reasonably find that the State's witness, Gauthier, was an accomplice. The district court denied the requested instruction, reasoning that under State v. Larson , 787 N.W.2d 592 (Minn. 2010), the instruction was precluded as a matter of law because Montano intended to present evidence identifying Gauthier as an alternative perpetrator. The jury found Montano guilty as charged. He now appeals, arguing that the district court abused its discretion when it denied his request for an accomplice-testimony jury instruction. He also filed a pro se supplemental brief, asserting additional claims. Because there is no evidence that Montano and Gauthier worked together as accomplices to murder Gokee and because none of the pro se claims merit relief, we affirm.

FACTS

Andrew Gokee was shot in the head on the night of April 20, 2018 and died of his injuries two days later. Only three other people were present at the time Gokee was shot: Montano, Gauthier, and Montano's father. The shooting occurred at the rural property of Montano's father in Carlton County. Montano's father did not see or hear the shootings, but called 911 immediately afterwards. He told the 911 operator that his son shot Gokee and that he had taken the gun away from his son before his son ran off into the woods. The police arrived and after sending Gokee to a hospital, they took statements from Gauthier and Montano's father.

In his pretrial statements and testimony, Gauthier noted that earlier in the day, while Gokee and Montano's father were at work, Montano showed him how to load and fire a .22 caliber revolver so that they could hunt birds. After Gokee and Montano's father returned from work around 5 p.m., Gauthier spent several hours alone with Gokee catching up and telling stories. Gokee then mentioned he was planning to spend the night at his girlfriend's home and offered to drop Gauthier off at the casino if Montano's father would give him a ride home. Gokee also offered to give Gauthier some money for the casino. Gauthier said that he went out to the garage to ask Montano's father for a ride, where he found Montano's father and Montano smoking methamphetamine. Gauthier then smoked some methamphetamine with them.

Montano's father agreed to give Gauthier a ride home. Gauthier went back inside while Gokee finished packing. They then both left the house and walked to a nearby vehicle when Montano jumped out with a gun. Gauthier thought it was a joke and began laughing, but Montano responded that this wasn't a joke and that he was going to kill Gauthier. Gauthier ducked his head, but thought a bullet grazed him. He began running away to hide from Montano when he heard another gunshot.

Gauthier stated that after he tripped and fell, Montano approached him and began hitting him with a weapon. Gauthier said that Montano's father then arrived and shouted, "What the f*** are you doing? You just shot your uncle." Gauthier ran to Gokee as Montano's father struggled with Montano. Gauthier claimed that Montano said he killed Gokee and was going to kill him next. Gauthier said that he asked Montano why he shot Gokee, to which Montano replied, "You guys don't appreciate the work I do." Gauthier stated that he retrieved the revolver from the house and, after more threats from Montano, fired a shot at Montano's feet. After Montano kept approaching, Gauthier fired a second shot that struck Montano and stopped him. Montano eventually fled to the woods before law enforcement—who were called to the scene by Montano's father—arrived.

After arriving, an officer observed an injury on the right side of Gauthier's head near his ear. The paramedic on the scene also testified about treating a graze wound on the back of Gauthier's head. Gauthier identified a nearby .22 caliber rifle lacking a stock that he claimed was the weapon used by Montano. Gauthier also identified a nearby .22 caliber revolver as the one he used in an attempt to keep Montano away from Gokee.

Montano's father also gave pretrial statements and testimony. He stated that as soon as he got home from work that afternoon, he went to work in his shop with his son. Montano's father agreed that Gauthier had come into the shop and asked for a ride, noting that "[e]verybody was in a good mood." He did note, however, that Gauthier complained about Gokee only giving him $10 for the casino and that Gauthier asked him for money too. Montano's father also testified that he then went to work with a grinder that made "a lot" of noise. He worked on the grinder for about 20 minutes before he heard muffled hollering outside. Montano's father then left the garage, saw Gokee lying on the ground, and heard Gauthier shouting. Montano's father testified that Gauthier said that Montano had shot Gokee and tried to shoot him, too. Montano's father then went into the house to get a spotlight, and when shining the light around outside saw Gauthier on his back in the middle of the yard. He then saw Montano "quite a ways away" from Gauthier. Montano appeared "big-eyed like in shock or something." Montano's father did not see Montano holding anything at that time. Montano's father said that Gauthier indicated that he had been shot in the foot. Montano's father repeatedly told Montano to get away, then went inside to call 911. He testified that he never made physical contact with Montano, nor did he handle either of the .22 caliber weapons that night. Montano's father also stated that he had not used drugs or done any drinking that night.

After arriving at the scene, police searched the woods and located Montano several hours later. Montano suffered a bullet wound to the chest and was taken to a nearby hospital. When asked in the woods who shot him, Montano replied that he did not know. At the hospital, police asked Montano if he had shot anyone, to which he responded no. He reaffirmed that he did not know how he had been shot. Blood tests from Montano later showed that he had methamphetamine and amphetamine in his system that night. But law enforcement did not note finding any methamphetamine or paraphernalia at the property during their investigation.

Investigators recovered two .22 caliber weapons from the scene. The first was a bolt-action rifle with its stock missing that was on a flatbed trailer parked nearby on the property. The chamber was partially open with one spent case in the chamber and one cartridge remaining in the magazine. Investigators found latent fingerprints on the rifle, but they did not belong to either Montano or Gauthier. Two spent cases lying on the ground next to the vehicle where the shooting occurred came from the rifle. The second weapon was the revolver. The revolver had two spent cases and four copper-coated cartridges remaining. DNA found on the revolver belong solely to Gauthier. The siding of the house had one defect that indicated bullet damage. Additional weapons and ammunition were found in the house.

A Carlton County grand jury indicted Montano for first-degree premeditated murder of Gokee and attempted first-degree premeditated murder of Gauthier. Before trial, Montano filed a motion in limine requesting an order allowing him to offer evidence that Gauthier caused Gokee's death as an alternative perpetrator. For the alternative perpetrator theory, Montano pointed to inconsistencies in Gauthier's testimony, Gauthier's possible motive to kill Gokee, and grand jury testimony from Gokee's attending physician who believed the gunshot wound potentially came from a handgun and not a rifle.

Montano also sought a jury instruction that explained to the jury that it could not convict him based on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, Gauthier. For accomplice corroboration, Montano argued that because Gauthier could have been indicted with the same crime, he was an accomplice as a matter of law, which required that the district court give an accomplice-testimony instruction to the jury. At the very least, he argued, it was a question of fact for the jury to decide.

In support of the accomplice-testimony instruction, Montano presented the following evidence. Gauthier admitted that he was at the scene of the crime at the time it occurred. Gauthier also admitted that he had possession of the revolver—one of the potential murder weapons—and fired two shots with it. Gauthier's DNA was also found on the revolver. Gauthier further made inconsistent statements to law enforcement, the county attorney, and the grand jury regarding the night of the murder. In particular, Gauthier claimed that Montano fired the .22 caliber rifle at him, but Montano's DNA and fingerprints were not found on the rifle nor was Montano wearing gloves that night which would preclude DNA or fingerprints. Investigators were unable to determine which .22 caliber weapon killed Gokee, but Gokee's attending physician believed that the weapon was fired at close range. Finally, Montano pointed out that he believed the statement of Montano's fat...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • State v. Paatalo
    • United States
    • Minnesota Court of Appeals
    • September 18, 2023
    ...a jury-nullification instruction at his request;[3] and (6) "not allowing [Paatalo] to make jurisdictional arguments at the trial."[4] See id. As Paatalo's remaining three arguments, we find them unconvincing. Paatalo asserts that "[c]riminal procedure is a civil matter operating under comm......
  • State v. Khalil, A19-1281
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • March 24, 2021
  • Mongar v. State
    • United States
    • Minnesota Court of Appeals
    • July 18, 2022
    ...a jury was asked to decide whether the victim was mentally incapacitated or physically helpless due to alcohol consumption. Khalil, 956 N.W.2d at 643. This comparison is unavailing. Our supreme court concluded in Khalil that a new trial was necessary because the district court erroneously f......
  • State v. Crenshaw
    • United States
    • Minnesota Court of Appeals
    • January 16, 2024
    ... ... Such arguments will not be ... considered unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere ... inspection." State v. Montano , 956 N.W.2d 643, ... 650-51 (Minn. 2021) (quotations and citation omitted) ...          The ... district court ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT