State v. Robinson
| Decision Date | 20 October 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. C3-94-1685,C3-94-1685 |
| Citation | 539 N.W.2d 231 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. William Joseph ROBINSON, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The absence of a specific definition of "pattern" in the domestic abuse statute, Minn.Stat. § 609.185(6), does not render the statute unconstitutionally vague.
2. Given any reasonable definition of the word "pattern", the evidence taken in the light most favorable to the verdict was sufficient to support the jury's conclusion that
appellant was guilty of domestic abuse murder.
3. There is no reversible error where the trial court properly instructed the jury on the crimes of second-degree murder and first-degree manslaughter, and the state met its burden of disproving the presence of heat of passion.
4. Evidentiary rulings concerning the admission of photographs and exclusion of prior bad acts are within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed unless there was an abuse of discretion.
Cathryn Young Middlebrook, Minneapolis, John M. Stuart, Minn. State Public Defender, for appellant.
Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Minn. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, J. Michael Richardson, Minneapolis, Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Atty., for respondent.
Heard, considered and decided by the court en banc.
This case is a direct appeal from convictions of first-degree murder (domestic abuse), Minn.Stat. § 609.185(6) (1994), and second-degree murder (intentional), Minn.Stat. § 609.19(1) (1994), a lesser included offense. The convictions arose from the September 1993 stabbing death of Barbara Smith. The appellant, William Joseph Robinson, raises four issues on appeal: 1) the constitutionality of the domestic abuse murder statute; 2) the sufficiency of the evidence on domestic abuse murder; 3) the sufficiency of the evidence on second-degree (intentional) murder; and 4) certain evidentiary rulings made by the trial court. We affirm.
Robinson and Smith met in 1989, and began living together in September of 1990, along with Smith's three children. Their relationship was marked by arguments and physical confrontations, which led to Robinson moving out of their home on three occasions. For several weeks prior to the day of the killing, the relationship between Robinson and Smith had been tense. On that day, Smith and her children had been gone and returned home after having dinner with her sister. Robinson testified at trial that Smith was in a fury when she came home, that she threw her keys at him and that she came at him with an object in her hand. He said that he had no memory of what happened after that, until he was talking to the 911 operator.
Smith's three children, aged 7-13, were home at the time of the killing. The two eldest testified that when they arrived home an argument started between their mother and Robinson. The argument escalated when Robinson took a knife from the kitchen and attacked their mother, who was ultimately stabbed 19 times. She died approximately one hour after the police arrived at the scene, in response to a 911 call made by the eldest child.
When investigating officers Butler and Downing arrived at the scene, Butler called for the parties to come out and saw Robinson walk down the hallway. Officer Butler handcuffed and searched Robinson. Butler testified that Robinson said, Butler said Robinson claimed to be physically hurt, but he could find no evidence that Robinson was injured.
At the police station, detectives read Robinson his Miranda warning and interviewed him about the stabbing. The statement made during the 28 minute interview was recorded and later transcribed. Following a pre-trial Rasmussen hearing, the state offered the statement into evidence. In the statement Robinson admits the following:
1. That only one knife was involved in the incident;
2. That he was mellow, not in a rage, during the incident;
3. That he and Smith had been in the relationship for six years;
4. That the entire fight lasted 3-4 minutes;
5. That after the stabbing he didn't go back to the bedroom to see Smith.
6. That when they lived together in Minneapolis they had been through five or six fights.
7. That in the six years they were together he and Smith were in at least ten physical fights.
8. That he and Smith had mutual restraining orders against each other and the judge told him if he had another fight he would go to jail. 1
At trial, there was evidence of a number of specific incidents which supported the state's domestic abuse murder theory:
1. September 1990. Robinson testified he and Smith had an "altercation" that lasted 2 or 3 minutes and involved him grabbing her, shaking each other, loud hollering and Robinson leaving the house. An entry in Smith's diary dated September 23, 1990, stated,
2. October 1990. Robinson testified that he and Smith got into a "fist fight." Robinson admitted that during that fight he hit her three times and Smith's injuries included black eyes, a swollen lip and puffy cheeks. Testimony from Smith's co-worker described Smith after the fight in October 1990: The co-worker also testified that Smith later told her that the injuries were the result of Robinson beating her. An entry in Smith's diary for October 1990 reads in part,
3. July 1992. Robinson testified that he "shook" Smith during an argument they were having about disciplining the kids. Robinson claimed that Smith pulled a knife on him and threatened to kill him.
4. August 1992. Robinson testified that Smith came toward him with a knife and he shook her to calm her down. However, Smith's sister testified that Smith told her that during that fight Smith used a knife against Robinson in self-defense. During that fight a 911 call was made, 2 but when the police arrived at the house Smith was by herself. According to the investigating officer, Smith stated that Robinson had left, that they were fighting because he had been out all day and she gave him a description of Robinson, who was later found going to the hospital for a stab wound to his back. 3
5. May 1993. Two of Smith's children testified that after Smith returned home late from bowling, they heard Robinson and Smith fighting and they could hear crashing and slamming against the wall. Nicki, the 10-year-old, also testified that a day or two later she went with her mother to the hospital because her mother's ears were hurting. When asked about the incident on cross-examination Robinson testified:
6. Andre, Smith's 13-year-old son, testified to observing Robinson pick Smith up and slam her to the ground, on an unknown date. Robinson denied the incident.
7. August 1993. The police were called to the house because of a "physical altercation." The investigating officer testified that he had been called on a "domestic" report. When he arrived both Smith and Robinson claimed everything was fine, but they had called the police in case something happened because they had arguments and disputes before.
Furthermore, the state offered the following additional evidence as indicative of past abuse:
1. Robinson's statement to the police which admitted to "five or six fights" while he and Smith lived together in Minneapolis, and at least 10 physical fights throughout the relationship.
2. Robinson's testimony that he and Smith would have "arguments" which he described as:
3. Smith's sister's testimony that Smith and Robinson often argued and that Robinson had told her that he hit Smith on three or four separate occasions.
4. Robinson's sister-in-law's testimony that Robinson would come over to her house because he didn't want to go home because he and Smith had been arguing.
Robinson did not deny that he had killed Smith, but asserted that the killing was neither premeditated or intentional. The defense theory was that Robinson acted in the heat of passion, and in support of that theory they offered his testimony that on the night he killed Smith they had gotten into a "heated" and "boisterous" argument. Robinson stated that Smith was in a fury, tossing clothes and furniture around the bedroom, and that she threw his keys at him, told him she hated him and that she would kill him. Next, Robinson claims they got into a "tussle," and then she came towards him as if she was going to attack him. When asked if she had anything in her hands Robinson responded,
The defense's other witnesses consisted of Robinson's pastor, a longtime friend, a former girlfriend, several co-workers, his sister, his brother-in-law and his great aunt. The defense witnesses generally testified that Robinson was honest, hard-working and well-liked. Furthermore, his former girlfriend testified that, while ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Moua Her
...abuse was a `regular way of acting' for [the defendant]." State v. Clark, 739 N.W.2d 412, 422 (Minn.2007) (quoting State v. Robinson, 539 N.W.2d 231, 237 (Minn. 1995)). Further, "the events must be sufficiently proximate in time to constitute a `pattern.'" State v. Cross, 577 N.W.2d 721, 72......
-
State v. Kendell
...in closing, a prosecutor may read from the transcribed testimony of a witness and may refer to admitted evidence. See State v. Robinson, 539 N.W.2d 231, 240 (Minn. 1995); State v. Waters, 276 N.W.2d 34, 36 (Minn.1979). Here, simply allowing the state to play the recording one additional tim......
-
State v. Hokanson
...a “ ‘regular way of acting,’ ” and the acts must be sufficiently temporally proximate to one another. Id. (quoting State v. Robinson, 539 N.W.2d 231, 237 (Minn.1995)). However, appellant does not argue on appeal that the State failed to prove that the abuse alleged, if proven, would constit......
-
State v. Romine
...that is on review in this case, Romine's challenge to the constitutionality of that statute is timely. See, e.g., State v. Robinson, 539 N.W.2d 231, 236 (Minn.1995) (considering challenge to constitutionality of statutory basis of conviction on direct appeal). Penal statutes "must meet due ......