State v. Al-Naseer
| Decision Date | 27 April 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. A03-634.,A03-634. |
| Citation | 678 N.W.2d 679 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Mohammed Gazizamil AL-NASEER, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Mike Hatch, Attorney General, Thomas R. Ragatz, Amy V. Kvalseth, Assistant Attorneys General, St. Paul, MN and Lisa Borgen, Clay County Attorney, Kenneth Kohler, Assistant Clay County Attorney, Moorhead, MN, for respondent.
John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Rochelle R. Winn, Assistant State Public Defender, Minneapolis, MN, for appellant.
Considered and decided by SHUMAKER, Presiding Judge; KALITOWSKI, Judge; and MINGE, Judge.
On this appeal from a conviction for criminal vehicular homicide, appellant argues that (1) admission of a videotaped statement violated his constitutional rights because he invoked his right to remain silent and made unequivocal requests for an attorney; (2) the district court erred in admitting emotional "spark-of-life" evidence and in denying a motion for a mistrial after the prosecutor questioned the victim's widow on her preclusion from attending the rest of the trial because of a sequestration order; (3) the district court erred in responding to jury questions during deliberations by stating appellant did not have to be aware of hitting the victim or have to cause the collision to be found guilty; (4) the district court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of careless driving; (5) he did not receive effective assistance of counsel; and (6) the district court erred when it sentenced him on both counts for a single behavioral incident.
In June 2002, appellant Mohammed Gazizamil Al-Naseer was driving his car home to Fargo, North Dakota from Cass Lake. He swerved onto the side of the road and struck and killed Kane Thomson (Thomson), who was changing a tire. Ten miles down the highway, appellant realized that his headlights were not working properly. Because he was only eight miles from home, he decided to drive slowly with his hazard lights on. But a short time later, he stopped to try to repair the headlights. Two police officers, who had been dispatched to locate a car involved in a hit-and-run accident, stopped when they saw appellant. One of the officers noticed fresh damage to appellant's car and asked appellant if he hit something about ten miles back. Appellant is Iraqi and speaks very little English, but he told the officers that he might have hit something. The officers arrested appellant and took him to the Moorhead Law Enforcement Center, where Sergeant Daniel Prischmann videotaped an interview with him. The relevant portions of the interview are as follows:
Sergeant Prischmann continued to question appellant for another 50 minutes. The videotape shows that appellant was very unsure as to why he was there and why Sergeant Prischmann was questioning him. The videotape also shows that because of the language barrier, appellant is difficult to understand, and doesn't always understand what Sergeant Prischmann is saying to him. At one point, he seems to think he is being questioned because he did not have lights: "I need to go to court because I'm suppose to go to the gas station but I cannot go because I don't have lights."
After Sergeant Prischmann asked appellant several questions about the problems appellant was experiencing with his car, he asked, Appellant responded, "No. I don't know."
The state charged appellant with two counts of criminal vehicular homicide for causing the accident through gross negligence and leaving the scene of an accident. Before trial, appellant stipulated that he was driving the vehicle that hit Thomson. An interpreter was appointed to assist him when needed during the trial.
Appellant moved to suppress the videotaped interview, arguing that Sergeant Prischmann obtained the statement after appellant invoked his right to counsel. The district court denied the motion because appellant "simply never paused in his attempt to explain his story to Sergeant Prischmann, even while referring to his need for counsel," and he did not request to terminate the interrogation until his counsel was present.
At trial, the state showed the jury the entire videotaped interview. In addition, appellant testified that he didn't understand English very well and was confused during that interview. Appellant also testified that he was tired the night of the accident but did not recall having the accident and that it took him several days to believe that he hit Thomson. He stated that if he had known that he hit something he would have stopped.
Dustin Leingang, who was with Thomson on the night of the accident, testified that when Thomson's car got a flat tire, they pulled to the shoulder, put the hazard lights on, and used the light of the trunk and a small flashlight to see what they were doing. Leingang testified that there was enough room between the fog line and the ditch for the car, the removed tire, and Thomson, who weighed 250 pounds and was 6 feet 3 inches tall. Leingang held the flashlight as Thomson crouched down to change the tire. Leingang testified that when the accident occurred he was spun around as if being pushed. He then saw Thomson's body several feet in front of the car and saw a car's taillights, but no brake lights, and heard no acceleration.
The police officers, who arrived shortly after the accident, also testified. They described the scene and debris matching appellant's car. One of the officers also testified to finding appellant on the side of the road. He testified that appellant initially stated that he must have hit something but did not know what, and later became unclear as to what occurred.
An accident reconstructionist theorized that appellant's car made a gradual arc until his car crossed about a foot over the fog line and hit Thomson while he was crouched down changing the tire. He also theorized that, given Thomson's position, appellant would not have seen Thomson when he hit him, would not have seen him in the rearview mirror after the impact, and would not have been able to notice the damage to the front passenger side of his car without getting out of his car.
Thomson's wife (Ms. Thomson) testified about her life with Thomson and read a poem Thomson had written. Over appellant's objection, she also presented three photos to the jury—of Thomson and his father; of the Thomsons on their honeymoon; and of the Thomsons and their family on Thomsons' wedding day, six months before the accident.
Ms. Thomson stated that, based upon the motion to sequester, she would be testifying and could not attend the entire trial. Appellant moved for a mistrial based on the state's comments regarding Ms. Thomson's absence from much of the trial, her reading of the poem, and her testimony regarding Thomson's life. The district court denied the motion and gave a corrective instruction on the sequestration. Defense counsel requested that the district court submit the lesser-included offense of careless driving on the gross-negligence charge. The district court denied this motion.
During jury deliberations, the jury sent three written questions to the judge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Of Minn. v. Al-naseer, No. A07-2275.
...a new trial, concluding that the district court incorrectly instructed the jury on the mens rea requirement. State v. Al-Naseer (Al-Naseer I), 678 N.W.2d 679, 694-97 (Minn.App.2004). After granting Al-Naseer's petition for review, we affirmed the court of appeals' leaving-the-scene decision......
-
State v. Al-Naseer, No. A03-634.
...vehicular homicide — leaving the scene of an accident conviction, but affirmed the gross negligence conviction. State v. Al-Naseer, 678 N.W.2d 679, 689, 697 (Minn.App.2004). In affirming the gross negligence conviction, the court of appeals concluded that the admission of the videotaped int......
-
State v. Al-Naseer, A05-1394.
...rea requirement, and the district court should have implied a knowledge requirement as a matter of law." State v. Al-Naseer, 678 N.W.2d 679, 696 (Minn.App.2004) ("Al-Naseer I"). The court of appeals remanded the leaving-the-scene charge for a new trial, but did not specify the precise legal......
-
State v. Schmidt, No. A04-1078 (MN 12/28/2004)
...(quoting Friedman v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 473 N.W.2d 828, 831 (Minn. 1991)). See Hannon, 636 N.W.2d at 805 n.2; State v. Al-Naseer, 678 N.W.2d 679, 690 (Minn. App. 2004). The facts here require that appellant's January 20, 2004 statements be analyzed under both the three-part Edwards test......