State v. Noor, A19-1089

• Decision Date: 01 February 2021
• Docket Number: A19-1089
• Parties: STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Mohamed Mohamed NOOR, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

955 N.W.2d 644

STATE of Minnesota, Respondent,

v.Mohamed Mohamed NOOR, Appellant.

A19-1089

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

Filed February 1, 2021

A jury found appellant, a former police officer, guilty of third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter, based on his shooting of an unarmed woman when responding to a 911 call. Appellant challenges his resulting conviction of third-degree murder, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict. He also argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that his use of deadly force was not authorized by statute. Lastly, appellant argues that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial, violated his due-process right to explain his conduct, and abused its discretion by admitting cumulative expert-witness testimony. We affirm.

FACTS

In July 2017, appellant Mohamed Noor was on patrol as a Minneapolis police officer when he shot and killed Justine Ruszczyk. Respondent State of Minnesota charged Noor with second-degree murder under Minn. Stat. § 609.19, subd. 1(1) (2016) ; third-degree murder under Minn. Stat. § 609.195(a) ; and second-degree manslaughter under Minn. Stat. § 609.205(1) (2016).

The case was tried to a jury in April 2019. Evidence was presented that at 11:27 p.m., on July 15, 2017, Ruszczyk called 911 to report a woman yelling in the alley behind her home. Ruszczyk lived in a quiet, residential neighborhood in south Minneapolis that had one of the lowest crime rates in the city. Officer Noor and his partner Officer Matthew Harrity responded to the call, which was described as a report of "unknown trouble." Their squad-car's computer indicated that a 911 caller had reported a woman screaming behind a building. It also indicated that the 911 caller phoned again at approximately 11:35 p.m., requesting the officers’ estimated time of arrival. There was no indication that a weapon was involved.

Officer Harrity testified that he and Noor arrived at the alley at 11:37 p.m. Before entering the alley, Officer Harrity turned off the squad-car's headlights, and Noor dimmed the squad-car's computer screen. Neither officer turned on his body-worn camera (BWC). Officer Harrity drove down the alley with Noor in the passenger seat of the squad car. As the officers drove down the alley, Officer Harrity's driver's-side window was down, and the officers looked and listened for signs of a woman in distress. According to Officer Harrity, the only sound he heard was a dog barking or whining.

Officer Harrity testified that it took less than two minutes to drive down the alley. Officer Harrity stopped at the end of the alley and turned on the squad-car's headlights while Noor entered a "Code 4" into the squad-car's computer, conveying that the scene was "safe and secure" and that no help was needed. The officers did not contact Ruszczyk to inform her that they had completed their investigation.

The officers waited for a bicyclist to pass in front of the squad car before proceeding to their next call. As the officers waited for the bicyclist to pass, Officer Harrity saw a "silhouette" of a person outside and slightly behind the driver's-side window of the squad car. Next, he heard "something hit the car" and then "some sort of a murmur." According to Officer Harrity, he could not see whether the silhouette was a man or a woman, and he could not see any hands. Officer Harrity admitted that he was "startled" and said "something to the effect of, oh, sh-t or oh, Jesus." Officer Harrity testified that he thought the situation was "a possible ambush." Officer Harrity admitted that he never considered the possibility that the silhouette might have been the 911 caller or the woman who was heard screaming in the alley.

Upon noticing the silhouette, Officer Harrity reached for his gun and, without "any trouble," removed it from his holster and pointed it down. At the same time, Officer Harrity saw a flash and heard a "pop," prompting him to check to see if he had been shot. Officer Harrity looked at Noor and realized that Noor had fired his weapon from inside the squad car, across Officer Harrity's body. Officer Harrity looked out his window, saw Ruszczyk holding her abdomen, and heard her say, "I'm dying," or "I'm dead."

Officer Harrity testified that he holstered his gun, turned on his BWC, and got out of the squad car to help Ruszczyk. He then radioed "shots fired," and he and Noor attempted to provide medical assistance to Ruszczyk. The bicyclist heard the shot and began recording the officers from his cellular phone.

Several police officers and first responders arrived and attempted to provide medical assistance to Ruszczyk. Their efforts were unsuccessful, and Ruszczyk was pronounced dead at the scene. Ruszczyk was barefoot, wearing a pink shirt and pajama bottoms. The only thing near her body was her "bright gold speckled" cell phone, which was lying by her feet.

The state presented evidence regarding the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension's investigation of the shooting, as well as forensic evidence collected at the scene. In addition, the state presented the testimony of an expert witness, who provided an overview of Minnesota's peace-officer-training standards and described the Minneapolis Police Department's (MPD) training accreditation. The expert testified that he reviewed Noor's training records and opined that Noor had been properly trained by the MPD in the use of force, the use of firearms in low-light situations, crisis intervention, and pre-ambush awareness. Noor's training included a use-of-force continuum and "shoot/no shoot" scenarios.

The expert further testified that Noor was trained that deadly force against a citizen is authorized only if it is apparent that the citizen presents a danger of death or great bodily harm to the officer or another. The expert testified that it was inconsistent with Noor's training to unholster his firearm in the squad car. Finally, the expert testified that police officers are routinely approached while they are in their squad car and that officers are trained that they need to "identify if there's a threat." The expert concluded that, based upon his review of the circumstances presented in this case, Noor's use of deadly force was "excessive, objectively unreasonable, and violated police policy, practices, and training."

Over Noor's objection, the state presented the testimony of a second expert witness. The second expert testified that officers are "trained to ensure that the use of force that they use, deadly or not deadly, was necessary at the time that they did so and was proportionate to the level of resistance that they were confronted with." Although the second expert testified that sometimes it is appropriate for a police officer in the passenger seat to fire across their partner, for instance, if they see a gun, he stated that he reviewed the material in this case and concluded that Noor's "actions were contrary to generally accepted policing practices at the time of ... Ruszczyk's death."

An MPD lieutenant testified about the dangers of police ambush. During his testimony, the lieutenant referenced police ambushes that had occurred in Dallas and New York, and he described a 2012 incident in which a Minneapolis park officer was stabbed in an ambush following a response to a "hoax" 911 call. He also testified about an MPD officer who was murdered in an ambush at a restaurant several years earlier. According to the lieutenant, the topic of ambush was discussed "frequently at roll calls," including during the week prior to Ruszczyk's death. The lieutenant acknowledged that an important component of counter-ambush training is to watch for people's hands as they approach because an officer should determine if there is a threat. Finally, an MPD sergeant testified that at roll call, she advised the officers that because of national ambush incidents, two officers would be assigned to each squad car.

Noor took the stand in his own defense. He testified that Officer Harrity became his partner in December 2016, and that working with a partner is like a "marriage." According to Noor, he had worked "[c]lose to 400 hours" with Officer Harrity and described his disposition as "very calm."

Noor testified that after he and Officer Harrity drove through the alley, he entered "Code 4" into the squad-car's computer.

Noor claimed that he then heard a "loud bang" and saw someone appear on the driver's side of the squad car, prompting Officer Harrity to scream "oh, Jesus," while reaching for his weapon. According to Noor, Officer Harrity turned to him "with fear in his eyes," and Noor observed that Harrity's gun was caught in his holster. Noor testified that he also observed a female with blond hair, wearing a pink shirt, raise her right arm. Noor stated that he "fired one shot. The threat was gone."

Noor claimed that the woman's act of raising her arm was significant because "she could have a weapon" and that if he had not shot and she was armed, Officer Harrity "would have been dead." According to Noor, he made a "split-second decision" to shoot "to stop the threat" because his "partner feared for his life." But Noor acknowledged that he did not see anything in the woman's hand.

Noor claimed that his use of deadly force was authorized under Minn. Stat. § 609.066 (2016). He testified that when he fired his gun, he feared that he and his partner were the victims of a police ambush. But when Noor attempted to discuss police ambushes that had occurred nationwide, the district court sustained the state's objections.

Noor called an expert witness, who testified regarding instances in which it may be objectively reasonable for a police officer to fire his gun from inside of a squad car. Noor's expert opined that, based on the circumstances, Noor's use of deadly force was justified.

The jury acquitted Noor of second-degree murder, but it found him guilty of third-degree murder and second-degree...