State v. Vossen
| Decision Date | 16 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | A21-1514 |
| Parties | State of Minnesota, Appellant, v. Algene Leeland Vossen, Respondent. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Minnesota |
This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).
Kandiyohi County District Court File No. 34-CR-20-658
Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Shane D Baker, Kandiyohi County Attorney, Julianna F. Passe Assistant County Attorney, Willmar, Minnesota (for appellant)
Judie Marshall, Kent D. Marshall, Judie Marshall Law LLC, Manchester, Connecticut (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Reilly, Judge; and Frisch, Judge.
In this appeal from the district court's order finding respondent not competent to stand trial, appellant State of Minnesota argues that the district court improperly weighed the evidence to conclude that respondent could not rationally consult with his counsel. Respondent asserts that we lack jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court's competency order is not final. We accept jurisdiction and affirm.
In July 2020, appellant State of Minnesota charged then-80-year-old respondent Algene Leeland Vossen with one count of second-degree murder related to a January 1974 death that occurred in Willmar. Pursuant to Minn. R. Crim. P. 20.01, the district court ordered a psychological evaluation to determine Vossen's competency to stand trial. The court-appointed forensic psychologist, Dr. Tricia Aiken, concluded that Vossen was not competent to stand trial. Pursuant to Minn. R. Crim. P. 20.01, subd. 5(a)(1), the state requested and received a contested competency hearing. In anticipation of the hearing, the state and Vossen each retained their own expert to conduct an evaluation of Vossen's competency. The state's expert, Dr. Harlan Gilbertson, determined that Vossen was competent to stand trial. Vossen's expert, Dr. Sara Vaccarella, concluded that Vossen was not competent to stand trial. At the hearing, the district court heard testimony from each of the three experts and received each expert's report regarding Vossen's competency to stand trial.
Dr. Aiken evaluated Vossen first in March 2021 and again in August 2021. In the first evaluation, Dr. Aiken stated that, although Vossen had a fair factual understanding of the court proceedings and the charge he faced, she was concerned that he would be unable to rationally consult with his counsel. Her concern was based on Vossen's inability to chronologically discuss events and devise a workable defense strategy. She observed that Vossen had "obvious problems with confusion," often responding to direct questions with irrelevant or changing answers. She testified that she did not think that Vossen could pay sufficient attention during a trial because he gets distracted or confused, and he "would be extremely vulnerable in testimony." Based on Vossen's inability to rationally consult with counsel, Dr. Aiken concluded that Vossen was not competent to stand trial. In the second evaluation, Dr. Aiken found that Vossen looked stronger, was more alert, and gave more detailed answers. Even so, she observed that Vossen had the same difficulties with answering questions. She again concluded that Vossen was not competent to stand trial because he is unable to consult rationally with counsel.
In July 2021, Dr. Vaccarella evaluated Vossen. Dr. Vaccarella similarly concluded that Vossen exhibited satisfactory factual knowledge of the legal system but lacked rational understanding. She testified that Vossen struggles to take in new information, and he instead fixates on previously learned information, even if it is false, and repeats that information until it "becomes his reality." She concluded that Vossen's inability to grasp new information is a significant impairment. She also testified that Vossen has trouble retrieving information without cues and often gives irrelevant answers. She reported that, while there are modifications that the district court could make to accommodate Vossen's impairment during trial, like cues, reminders, or avoiding compound questions, she believed that these modifications would be "unrealistic and place significant burden on the legal system." Dr. Vaccarella also concluded that Vossen was not competent to stand trial because he is unable to rationally consult with counsel.
In August 2021, Dr. Gilbertson evaluated Vossen. Like Dr. Aiken and Dr. Vaccarella, Dr. Gilbertson also opined that Vossen has an acceptable factual understanding of the judicial process. But unlike the other two experts, Dr. Gilbertson opined that Vossen could rationally consult with his counsel based on Vossen's ability to articulate specific benefits and drawbacks of different pleas, plea agreements, and jury versus bench trials. He explained that Vossen's intellectual abilities "remain within the broad average range" and that, although Vossen has limited verbal learning and verbal retrieval skills, his "recall improves to within the average range" if he is provided cues. Dr. Gilbertson concluded that Vossen is competent to stand trial.
In all three evaluations, Vossen was adamant that he would plead not guilty and take his case to trial. Dr. Aiken concluded that Vossen's insistence to plead not guilty reflected that he has "very rigid thinking." She was concerned that he lacks a defense strategy and did not recognize that he lacks one. Dr. Vaccarella expressed similar concerns. She observed that Vossen could not form realistic expectations about the outcome of his case. Dr. Gilbertson interpreted Vossen's insistence to plead not guilty differently. He observed that a defendant's decision contradicting their self-interest may still be reasoned and informed. Dr. Gilbertson determined that Vossen is able to make thought-out legal decisions. Dr. Gilbertson also credited Vossen's extensive legal history and courtroom exposure as weighing in favor of his competency.
The district court found that Vossen is too cognitively impaired to adequately assist his counsel in his defense. The district court noted that the testimony from all three experts established that Vossen suffers from significant short-term memory impairment. The district court reasoned that Vossen's ability to recall newly learned information is "essential" to his participation in his defense, and the experts who evaluated Vossen opined that his ability to do so is deficient. The district court found that the experts' opinions established other impairments that also impede Vossen's ability to consult with and assist counsel in his own defense. The district court specifically noted Vossen's poor concentration and attention span, struggle to convey accurate information, and susceptibility to suggestion. The district court found that those impairments would also make it difficult for Vossen to convey relevant details to his counsel. The district court determined that Vossen is not competent to stand trial.
The state appeals.
Vossen argues that we lack jurisdiction over the appeal because a competency determination is reviewable every six months. Because the jurisdictional question is dispositive, we address that argument before turning to the state's argument that the district court improperly weighed the evidence regarding Vossen's competency. We conclude that neither argument is persuasive and affirm the district court's competency determination.
Vossen argues that we lack jurisdiction because "[t]he state has the opportunity to request further review regarding [Vossen's] competency separate from this appeal," rendering the order not final under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103.03 (final-judgment rule). We disagree.
Under Minn. R. Crim. P. 28.01, subd. 2, the civil appellate rules govern unless the criminal rules direct otherwise. And here, Minn. R. Crim. P. 28.04, subd. 1(1), directs otherwise because it permits the state to appeal "any pretrial order," which necessarily includes the district court's order finding that Vossen is not competent to stand trial. The final-judgment rule therefore does not apply to this case.
Instead, to appeal a pretrial order under Minn. R. Crim. P. 28.04, subd. 1(1), the state must show that "the district court's ruling will have a critical impact on its case." State v. Obeta, 796 N.W.2d 282, 286 (Minn. 2011). "Critical impact" requires that the effect of the pretrial ruling "seriously impede" the prosecution's case. State v. Norberg, 423 N.W.2d 733, 735 (Minn.App. 1988). We agree with the state that the district court's competency ruling critically impacts its case. The state is currently unable to prosecute Vossen because he is not competent to stand trial, notwithstanding the possibility that this circumstance could change at some undefined point in the future. Indeed, it is possible that Vossen will never be found competent, and the state may never be able to prosecute its case. We conclude that the district court's competency determination critically impacts the state's case and accept appellate jurisdiction.
The state argues that the district court improperly weighed the evidence when concluding that Vossen is not competent. The state contends that, while Vossen has cognitive impairments, the evidence presented to the district court nevertheless establishes that he is able to rationally consult with counsel.
The Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure require the suspension of criminal proceedings when a defendant is not legally...
To continue reading
Request your trial