State v. Munt

Decision Date31 May 2013
Docket NumberNo. A11–2315.,A11–2315.
Citation831 N.W.2d 569
PartiesSTATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Joel Marvin MUNT, Appellant.
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Syllabus by the Court

1. Because the prospective juror's answer during voir dire did not demonstrate actual bias, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to remove the juror for cause.

2. The judge's comments about the schedule of phase two of the bifurcated jury trial, which allowed jurors to plan their personal lives, did not express actual or apparent bias against the appellant, nor did those comments improperly influence the jury's verdict.

3. No abuse of discretion occurred when the district court excluded surrebuttal evidence, determined that a 9–year–old minor was incompetent to testify, and did not inquire into the effectiveness of appointed counsel.Lori Swanson, Attorney General, John B. Galus, Assistant Attorney General, Saint Paul, MN; and Ross E. Arneson, Blue Earth County Attorney, Mankato, MN, for respondent.

David W. Merchant, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Richard Schmitz, Assistant State Public Defender, Saint Paul, MN, for appellant.

OPINION

DIETZEN, Justice.

Appellant Joel Marvin Munt was indicted by a Blue Earth County grand jury of four counts of first-degree murder, one count of second-degree murder, two counts of first-degree aggravated robbery, three counts of second-degree assault, three counts of kidnapping, and three counts of criminal vehicular operation causing injury, arising out of the shooting death of his ex-wife Svetlana and the kidnapping of their three children. Because Munt pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of mental illness, the district court bifurcated the trial. The jury found Munt guilty of all counts and rejected his not-guilty-by-reason-of-mental-illness defense. On direct appeal, Munt argues that the district court erred by: (1) declining to remove a prospective juror for cause; (2) making allegedly improper comments to the jury; (3) denying his request to testify on surrebuttal; (4) determining that his 9–year–old daughter was incompetent to testify; and (5) failing to inquire into the nature of his pretrial complaints about counsel appointed to represent him. Munt also raises various pro se claims. Because we conclude that the district court did not commit error and Munt's pro se claims lack merit, we affirm.

Joel Munt met Svetlana through a Russian internet dating service. Munt traveled to Russia twice to visit Svetlana; during the second visit, the two were married. Subsequently, the couple returned to Minnesota and had three children: J.L.M., M.M.M., and M.L.M.

In early October 2006, Svetlana reported to the police that Munt had been abusing her. Around the same time, O.S., a friend of Svetlana's, received repeated phone calls from Svetlana indicating that she was frightened for her life. Svetlana removed herself and her children from the home and moved to the CADA house, a domestic-abuse shelter located in Mankato. Munt then initiated divorce proceedings, alleging that Svetlana had been mistreating their children. According to Munt, Svetlana gave the children scalding baths, shoved J.L.M. off a toy train, and locked the children in their rooms.

The district court granted Munt temporary custody of the children and Svetlana visitation rights. Later, the arrangement changed to 50/50 split custody. In October 2008, Munt refused to return the children to Svetlana after a scheduled visitation ended because he alleged that she physically abused the children. After a hearing, the district court found Munt in contempt, terminated his custody rights, and limited his contact with the children to supervised visitation at the CADA house.

The murder occurred during Munt's scheduled visitation with his three children on March 28, 2010. It was Svetlana's habit to arrive early at Rasmussen Woods park and then drive to the CADA house at the scheduled time. Munt also first drove to the park, where he encountered Svetlana and the children sitting in Svetlana's Chevrolet Cavalier. Munt drove his Chevrolet Suburban toward the driver's side of Svetlana's car and smashed into the car, pinning it against a tree. Munt then exited his car and shot Svetlana four times in the head with a pistol.

Several witnesses observed Munt shortly after the collision and shooting. T.B., who was walking his dog along a trail in the nearby woods, heard a loud crash, gunshots, and what sounded like a woman screaming. T.B. raced to the scene and observed the Suburban had “t-boned” the Cavalier. As T.B. approached the scene, he encountered Munt, who was standing next to the Cavalier. Munt pointed his gun at T.B. and threatened to kill him. T.B. fled the scene and called 911 on his cell phone.

M.D. and C.D., who were returning home from church with their three children in a Yukon Denali, observed smoke rising from the Rasmussen Woods park. They approached the Cavalier and discovered M.L.M. with a bloody face and M.M.M. crying hysterically. As M.D. and C.D. moved to help the children, Munt walked toward C.D. with his gun and threatened, “I will f***ing kill you.” Similarly, Munt pointed his gun at M.D. and stated, [L]eave my kids alone or I am going to f***ing kill you.” Munt then took the keys to the Yukon Denali, loaded his three children inside, and drove out of the park.

A Blue Earth County Sheriff's Deputy responded to a 911 call and stopped Munt. Officers arrested Munt and found in his pockets three knives and a magazine containing .45–caliber bullets. In the vehicle, officers discovered a Ruger P90 pistol, with its safety off and hammer cocked, and an empty magazine. Forensic analysis later determined that the pistol was the gun used to shoot Svetlana.

Officers also found the three children seated in the rear of the vehicle. J.L.M., the oldest of the three, said: “Mommy's dead ... Daddy killed her. Daddy had a gun.” The children were transported by ambulance to the hospital. M.L.M., the youngest child, sustained the most significant injuries, suffering trauma to the face. Several pieces of glass became imbedded in the child's face. M.L.M. underwent four surgeries to remove the glass and repair the scarring.

A Blue Earth County grand jury indicted Munt with the following 17 counts: one count of first-degree premeditated murder, Minn.Stat. § 609.185(a)(1) (2012); two counts of first-degree felony murder, Minn.Stat. § 609.185(a)(3); one count of first-degree domestic abuse murder, Minn.Stat. § 609.185(a)(6); one count of second-degree intentional murder, Minn.Stat. § 609.19, subd. 1(1) (2012); one count of drive-by shooting, Minn.Stat. § 609.66, subd. le(a), (b) (2012); two counts of first-degree aggravated robbery, Minn.Stat. § 609.245, subd. 1 (2012); three counts of second-degree assault, Minn.Stat. § 609.222, subd. 1 (2012); three counts of kidnapping, Minn.Stat. § 609.25, subd. 1(2) (2012); and three counts of criminal vehicular operation causing injury, Minn.Stat. § 609.21, subd. 1(1) (2012). Munt pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of mental illness, and the case proceeded to a bifurcated jury trial.

During phase one of the trial, the State presented evidence consistent with the facts described above. The State also called Munt's fiancée, T.S., who testified that Munt called her on the day of the shooting and told her: “Svetlana is dead.” T.S. asked Munt to explain what he meant, and he replied, “I drove my truck into her car and I shot her, she's dead.”

Munt denied that he planned or intended to kill Svetlana. He testified that, when he arrived at the park on the day of Svetlana's death, some entity, which he described as “it,” seized control of his body. He explained that he watched helplessly as “it” caused him to crash into Svetlana's car and shoot her. According to Munt, he was not “back in [his] body” until after he was arrested. Additionally, Munt's former employer, J.S., testified that he and Munt had made plans to meet for lunch after Munt's visit with the children. J.S. stated that Munt called him en route to the visitation to confirm their lunch plans for that afternoon.

At the end of phase one, the district court submitted to the jury the 17 counts charged in the indictment as well as the lesser offense of first-degree heat-of-passion manslaughter, Minn.Stat. § 609.20(1) (2012). The jury found Munt guilty of the 17 indicted counts, but acquitted him of heat-of-passion manslaughter.

During phase two of the trial, the State called Dr. Sheryl Delain, the court-appointed forensic psychologist. Dr. Delain testified that Munt may have been clinically depressed when he shot Svetlana, but his mental state would not have prevented him from knowing the nature or wrongfulness of his acts. Munt called Dr. Allen Coursol, a licensed psychologist. Dr. Coursol testified that Munt suffered from major depression and paranoid personality disorder, but agreed with Dr. Delain that Munt was able to understand the nature and wrongfulness of his acts at the time of the offense.

The jury rejected Munt's mental illness defense. The district court then convicted Munt of first-degree premeditated murder and imposed a life sentence without the possibility of release. Additionally, the district court convicted Munt of first-degree aggravated robbery, second-degree assault, kidnapping, and criminal vehicular operation causing injury, and imposed sentence.

I.

Munt raises five issues on appeal and asserts various pro se claims. Munt first argues that the district court erred when it declined to remove prospective juror B.S. for cause. According to Munt, B.S. expressed actual bias against his mental illness defense in response to a question during voir dire. Consequently, Munt argues, the district court deprived him of the right to a fair trial by an impartial jury when it denied his challenge for cause against B.S.

We review the district court's denial of a challenge for cause for an abuse of discretion. State v. Barlow...

To continue reading

Request your trial
128 cases
  • State v. Smith, s. A14–0941
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • March 9, 2016
    ...). "The defendant has the right ‘to present the defendant's version of the facts through the testimony of witnesses.’ " State v. Munt, 831 N.W.2d 569, 583 (Minn.2013) (quoting State v. Richardson, 670 N.W.2d 267, 277 (Minn.2003) ). However, "both the accused and the state must comply with p......
  • Munt v. Schnell
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • January 31, 2020
    ...operation causing injury, arising out of the shooting death of his ex-wife and the kidnapping of their three children. State v. Munt, 831 N.W.2d 569, 575 (Minn. 2013). Ultimately, Munt was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility ......
  • Walford v. Bosch, Case No. 20-cv-1637 (SRN/TNL)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • July 2, 2021
    ...cited to, for example, State v. Fagerstrom, 176 N.W.2d 261 (Minn. 1970), State v. Worthy, 583 N.W.2d 270 (Minn. 1998), and State v. Munt, 831 N.W.2d 569 (Minn. 2013), which discussed a federal constitutional right to counsel. See, e.g., Resp't's App. at 86-89; see also Resp't's App. at 72. ......
  • Munt v. State
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • November 21, 2018
    ...to three consecutive 36-month sentences.After his trial, Munt filed a direct appeal, and we affirmed his convictions. See State v. Munt , 831 N.W.2d 569 (Minn. 2013). Two years later, Munt filed a petition for postconviction relief. The postconviction court denied his petition, and we affir......
  • 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