State v. Silvernail, A12–0021.

• Decision Date: 31 May 2013
• Docket Number: No. A12–0021.,A12–0021.
• Citation: 831 N.W.2d 594
• Parties: STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Jeffrey Allen SILVERNAIL, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

831 N.W.2d 594

STATE of Minnesota, Respondent,

v.Jeffrey Allen SILVERNAIL, Appellant.

No. A12–0021.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 31, 2013.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The record contains sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict that appellant is guilty of first-degree premeditated murder.

2. The district court's decision to lock the courtroom doors before the State began its closing argument did not violate appellant's right to a public trial.

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, James B. Early, Assistant Attorney General, Saint Paul, MN; and Timothy E.J. Fox, Wilkin County Attorney, Breckenridge, MN, for respondent.

David W. Merchant, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Roy G. Spurbeck, Assistant State Public Defender, Saint Paul, MN, for appellant.

OPINION

PAGE, Justice.

A jury found appellant Jeffrey Silvernail guilty of first-degree premeditated murder and second-degree intentional murder for the shooting death of Lori Roberts. The district court convicted Silvernail of first-degree premeditated murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment without the possibility of release. On appeal, Silvernail challenges his conviction on two grounds. First, he claims that the record contains insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction of first-degree premeditated murder because the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt at trial that he murdered Roberts. Second, he argues that the court committed reversible error by locking the courtroom doors before the State began its closing argument, which violated the public trial guarantees of the United States and Minnesota Constitutions. We affirm Silvernail's conviction.

I.

Silvernail and Roberts were romantically involved and lived together in Roberts' home. Several days before Roberts' death, Silvernail discovered that Roberts had started an intimate relationship with J.B. Silvernail later sent the following text message to Roberts: “I am very upset. We need to have a serious and the truth talk about Gary.” Although Silvernail's text message referred to someone named “Gary,” it included J.B.'s telephone number. Approximately 20 minutes later, Roberts sent a text message to J.B. stating that she “just told him!!” The following week, Silvernail informed his son and a coworker that he was moving out of Roberts' home because his relationship with Roberts had ended.

The evidence presented at trial established the following timeline for the hours surrounding Roberts' death on the morning of October 2, 2009. Roberts arrived at her job at 5:00 p.m. on the evening of October 1. While Roberts was at work, Silvernail packed his belongings at Roberts' home. Roberts left work nearly 10 hours later, at approximately 3:00 a.m.; picked up her daughter; and then returned home. Between 6:00 a.m. and 6:20 a.m., two of Roberts' neighbors saw Silvernail's vehicle in Roberts' driveway. Silvernail arrived at his job at 7:07 a.m., but then left at 8:30 a.m. to retrieve some of his belongings from Roberts' home. Approximately 15 minutes after leaving work, Silvernail called 911 to report that he had found Roberts' dead body in her home.

The police interviewed Silvernail that day. Silvernail told the police that Roberts had recently broken up with him “more or less on her lines” and that he was in the process of moving out. He further informed the police that he had left Roberts' home shortly after Roberts returned from work that morning, which he estimated was at 2:30 a.m. or 3:00 a.m. When he returned at around 8:45 a.m., he was surprised to see that Roberts' bedroom door was open. After seeing Roberts' body and blood in the bedroom, he called 911. He admitted that he owned several firearms, all of which were kept in a locked closet on the upper level of Roberts' home. Silvernail later gave the police his clothes, consented to a search of his apartment, and allowed the police to take a sample of his DNA.

The county medical examiner conducted an autopsy of Roberts' body and concluded that she died from two gunshot wounds: one in the neck and the other in the chest. The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) determined that Roberts was shot in the chest on the bed, and then shot a second time in the neck while she was on the floor at the foot of the bed. The police found two bullets in Roberts' bedroom, but did not find the murder weapon or any shell casings. Crime scene investigators determined that both bullets recovered from the bedroom were fired from the same gun and could have been fired from a Hi–Point Compact 9mm pistol. At trial, the State introduced evidence that one of Silvernail's firearms was a Hi–Point Compact 9mm pistol, which was missing and unaccounted for, and that Roberts' injuries were consistent with Roberts having been shot by a Hi–Point Compact 9mm pistol.

The BCA examined the forensic evidence recovered from Roberts' home. A DNA sample obtained from the blood-soaked T-shirt that Roberts wore on the night of the murder matched two or more males, but the predominant profile matched Silvernail's DNA. Other DNA evidence found in Roberts' home was inconclusive. Crime scene investigators also seized and examined three computers from Roberts' home. The BCA determined that Silvernail's laptop, which the police found in the living room of Roberts' home, was used between 4:02 a.m. and 4:14 a.m. on the morning of the murder to access an online-gaming website. A desktop computer,which belonged to Roberts, was used at approximately the same time.

Although Silvernail initially denied having any knowledge of Roberts' relationships with any other men, he admitted during a subsequent interview with the police that he learned of Roberts' potential relationship with J.B. on September 26—the night he sent the text message telling Roberts that they needed to have a serious “truth talk.” Silvernail continued to deny, however, that he was present at Roberts' home at 6:20 a.m. on the morning of the murder, when neighbors saw Silvernail's vehicle in Roberts' driveway.

The police arrested Silvernail after learning that the BCA had identified Roberts' blood on the pants that Silvernail wore on the day of the murder. Following the arrest, Silvernail shared a “pod” with D.M. at the Wilkin County Jail. At Silvernail's trial, D.M. testified that Silvernail confessed to him. Silvernail told D.M. that Silvernail killed Roberts after he “got into a pissing match” with her on the morning of the murder. Silvernail also admitted that he left “the house in Doran and then he came back and that's when he shot her.” Silvernail then “moved stuff” around in Roberts' home to make the murder look like a burglary. According to D.M., Silvernail was surprised that the police arrested him for the crime because no one had recovered the murder weapon or his tennis shoes, which were “[in] a sinking piece of concrete.” Silvernail also told D.M. that the missing murder weapon was in the Hudson River. D.M. thought that Silvernail confided in him because no one would believe “a convict's story,” even though D.M. told Silvernail that he would not “keep [his] mouth shut.”

The jury found Silvernail guilty of both first-degree premeditated murder and second-degree intentional murder. The district court convicted Silvernail of first-degree premeditated murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment without the possibility of release. This appeal followed.

II.

The first question presented by this case is whether the State presented sufficient evidence that Silvernail, rather than an unidentified alternative perpetrator, caused Roberts' death. SeeMinn.Stat. § 609.185(a)(1) (2012) (requiring the State to prove in a first-degree premeditated murder case that the defendant “cause[d] the death of a human being”). Silvernail's sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim raises the broader question of the applicable standard for reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence when the State presents both direct and circumstantial evidence to obtain a conviction. Silvernail contends that the circumstantial-evidence standard applies whenever the State's proof at trial depends in whole or in part on circumstantial evidence. The State disagrees. We need not resolve the parties' dispute regarding the standard of review because, even under the more favorable standard proposed by Silvernail, the record contains sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict that Silvernail is guilty of first-degree premeditated murder. Cf. State v. Sanders, 775 N.W.2d 883, 888 (Minn.2009) (explaining that we did not need to decide which harmless error standard applied “because even under the more favorable constitutional harmless-error standard, Sanders was not prejudiced”).

Under the circumstantial-evidence standard, we apply a two-step analysis. State v. Ortega, 813 N.W.2d 86, 100 (Minn.2012). The first step is to identify the circumstances proved. State v. Andersen, 784 N.W.2d 320, 329 (Minn.2010). In identifying the circumstances proved, we defer “ ‘to the jury's acceptance of the proof of these circumstances and rejection of evidence in the record that conflicted with the circumstances proved by the State.’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Stein, 776 N.W.2d 709, 718 (Minn.2010) (plurality opinion)). As with direct evidence, we “construe conflicting evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the jury believed the State's witnesses and disbelieved the defense witnesses.” State v. Tscheu, 758 N.W.2d 849, 858 (Minn.2008). Stated differently, in determining the circumstances proved, we consider only those circumstances that are consistent with the verdict. State v. Hawes, 801 N.W.2d 659, 668–69 (Minn.2011). This is because the jury is in the best position to evaluate the credibility of the evidence even in cases based on circumstantial evidence. Id. at 670.

The second step is to “determine whether the circumstances proved are ‘consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.’ ”...