State v. Shannon, No. C5-93-1029
| Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
| Writing for the Court | COYNE |
| Citation | 514 N.W.2d 790 |
| Docket Number | No. C5-93-1029 |
| Decision Date | 08 April 1994 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Verdell SHANNON, Appellant. |
Page 790
v.
Verdell SHANNON, Appellant.
Page 791
Syllabus by the Court.
Prosecutor in his closing statement in murder trial made a misleading argument on the lesser-included offense of heat-of-passion manslaughter that confused the jury, and trial court, when given an opportunity to correct the confusion, erroneously failed to do so; error was plain error of a prejudicial nature requiring a new trial.
John Stuart, State Public Defender, Steven P. Russett, Asst. State Public Defender, St. Paul, for appellant.
Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, and Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Atty., Linda M. Freyer, Asst. Hennepin County Atty., Minneapolis, for respondent.
Considered and decided by the court en banc without oral argument.
COYNE, Justice.
Defendant, Verdell Shannon, was tried on a charge of intentional second-degree murder. The trial court agreed to submit second-degree felony murder and first-degree heat-of-passion manslaughter. In his closing statement the prosecutor made a misleading argument on heat-of-passion manslaughter--which he called "heat of passion murder"--that confused the jury. When the jury, during its deliberations, asked a question indicating that it was confused, the trial court committed plain error of a prejudicial nature in failing to correct the confusion. The jury acquitted defendant of intentional murder but found him guilty of felony murder. Because the jury might appropriately have found defendant guilty only of heat-of-passion manslaughter if the prosecutor had not made a misleading argument and the trial court had corrected the jury's confusion that resulted from it, we reverse defendant's conviction and remand for a new trial.
In State v. Thunberg, 492 N.W.2d 534, 537 (Minn.1992), a case out of Hennepin County, the same county in which this case was tried, we ruled that in instructing a jury on heat-of-passion manslaughter, a trial court should follow the words of the statute; 1 adequacy of provocation is to be judged from the perspective of a "person of ordinary self-control under like circumstances," not from the perspective of a "sober person of ordinary self-control under like circumstances." 2
Our decision in Thunberg was filed November 20, 1992. Trial in the instant case commenced on January 25, 1993, two months after Thunberg was filed. In his closing argument, in which he urged the jury to find petitioner guilty of the charged offense, intentional murder, the prosecutor, Fred Karasov, made the following statement in support of his argument that defendant did not kill in the heat of passion:
The classic example is, you know, some guy coming home and finding his wife in bed with another man and he just kind of goes crazy and kills that person. That's kind of a classic example of what heat of passion manslaughter is, where they might hold a person less culpable.
Page 792
But it's not--the standard is not to look at this case under--from Mr. Shannon's point of view. That's not the way to do it because that's not the reasonable person standard. You don't look at somebody who is high on crack, high on cocaine, high on alcohol, if you even want to believe he was, you don't look at that from that point of view. You look at it as a reasonable person, meaning any one of you, who wasn't on drugs or who wasn't taking alcohol, whatever, would what she did have provoked any of you to have killed her. That's the kind of proof that you would need in order to lower his crime from murder in the second degree intentional murder to heat of passion manslaughter.
This statement was improper in two respects: (a) it is clearly inconsistent with what...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Crims, s. C6-95-41
...challenge an instruction at trial waives the right to appeal that issue unless the trial court committed plain error. State v. Shannon, 514 N.W.2d 790, 793 (Minn.1994); State v. Dolbeare, 511 N.W.2d 443, 446 (Minn.1994). On occasion, a trial court commits plain error by refusing to give sup......
-
State v. Dahlin, A03-1454.
...is required. State v. Griffin, 518 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn.1994); Leinweber, 303 Minn. at 419, 228 N.W.2d at 124; see also State v. Shannon, 514 N.W.2d 790, 792-93 (Minn.1994) (stating that lesser-included offense instruction should have been given, but reversing for new trial on other grounds); ......
-
State v. Ives, C0-96-1728
...had the effect of depriving the defendant of a fair trial. See Rairdon v. State, 557 N.W.2d 318, 323 (Minn.1996); State v. Shannon, 514 N.W.2d 790, 793 (Minn.1994); State v. Lewis, 547 N.W.2d 360, 364-65 (Minn.1996); State v. Post, 512 N.W.2d 99, 104 (Minn.1994). Any misconduct committed by......
-
State v. Herrera-Torres, A18-1341
...physical altercation in which [partner] shot [defendant], provoking [defendant] to shoot her back just seconds later"); State v. Shannon, 514 N.W.2d 790, 793 (Minn. 1994) (concluding manslaughter instruction wasPage 21 required where defendant and romantic partner engaged in a heated argume......
-
State v. Crims, s. C6-95-41
...challenge an instruction at trial waives the right to appeal that issue unless the trial court committed plain error. State v. Shannon, 514 N.W.2d 790, 793 (Minn.1994); State v. Dolbeare, 511 N.W.2d 443, 446 (Minn.1994). On occasion, a trial court commits plain error by refusing to give sup......
-
State v. Dahlin, A03-1454.
...is required. State v. Griffin, 518 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn.1994); Leinweber, 303 Minn. at 419, 228 N.W.2d at 124; see also State v. Shannon, 514 N.W.2d 790, 792-93 (Minn.1994) (stating that lesser-included offense instruction should have been given, but reversing for new trial on other grounds); ......
-
State v. Ives, C0-96-1728
...had the effect of depriving the defendant of a fair trial. See Rairdon v. State, 557 N.W.2d 318, 323 (Minn.1996); State v. Shannon, 514 N.W.2d 790, 793 (Minn.1994); State v. Lewis, 547 N.W.2d 360, 364-65 (Minn.1996); State v. Post, 512 N.W.2d 99, 104 (Minn.1994). Any misconduct committed by......
-
State v. Herrera-Torres, A18-1341
...physical altercation in which [partner] shot [defendant], provoking [defendant] to shoot her back just seconds later"); State v. Shannon, 514 N.W.2d 790, 793 (Minn. 1994) (concluding manslaughter instruction wasPage 21 required where defendant and romantic partner engaged in a heated argume......