State v. Wofford, No. 38171

• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
• Writing for the Court: MURPHY; ROGOSHESKE
• Citation: 114 N.W.2d 267,262 Minn. 112
• Docket Number: No. 38171
• Decision Date: 09 March 1962
• Parties: STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. James WOFFORD, Relator.

Page 267

114 N.W.2d 267 262 Minn. 112 STATE of Minnesota, Respondent,
v.
James WOFFORD, Relator. No. 38171. Supreme Court of Minnesota. March 9, 1962.

Page 268

Syllabus by the Court

[262 MINN 112] 1. Denial of a new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence is within the discretion of the trial court, where the evidence would be furnished by witnesses who testified at the first trial and who now, by their affidavits, show that their testimony was then perjured or that they are now tendering perjured evidence for use at a second trial.

2. Subject to certain exceptions referred to herein, evidence that a defendant in a criminal case has committed another crime unrelated and unconnected with the one for which he is on trial is inadmissible since it is not competent to prove one crime by proving another.

3. Under the facts recited in the opinion, the admission of evidence relating to the commission by the defendant of a crime other than the one for which he was on trial was so prejudicial as to deny him a fair trial.

4. Due process in the trial of a criminal case comprehends standards of procedure which accord with fundamental principles of fairness essential to the concept of justice and requires that the same standards of fairness be observed for the guilty as well as the innocent.

5. Where the impact of inadmissible evidence on the minds of the jury may create substantial prejudice, it could not be assumed under facts of instant case that the court's cautionary instruction would operate to remove the effects of such prejudice from the minds of the jury.

[262 MINN 113] James Wofford, pro se.

Walter F. Mondale, Atty. Gen., Charles E. Houston, Sol. Gen., St. Paul, George M. Scott, County Atty., Ronald I. Meshbesher, Asst. County Atty., Minneapolis, for respondent.

MURPHY, Justice.

This case is before us on a writ of error issued by this court on petition of the defendant, James Wofford, who was convicted of second-degree assault. Minn.St. 619.38. The defendant assigns a number of grounds on which he claims he is entitled to a new trial, the most important of which is that prejudicial error occurred in the reception of evidence which resulted in denial of a fair trial.

From the record it appears that about 1 a.m. on January 15, 1960, Ernest Svoboda, a taxicab driver, was dispatched to the Spinning Wheel Tavern in Minneapolis. He arrived there about 1:15 a.m. and picked up two passengers. After they entered the cab, he switched on the dome light, turned around, and asked them where they wanted to go. They answered that they were new in town but if he would drive down Cedar Avenue they would recognize the place to which they wished to go. The driver then turned off the light and proceeded to follow their directions. At about 1:30 a.m., after taking a circuitous route directed by the passengers, the driver was told to stop at 13th Avenue and 22nd Street. At this point Svoboda switched on the dome light of the cab and turned around to collect his fare. He again had an opportunity to see the faces of his passengers. At that time he saw a gun in the hand of one of the passengers, who was later identified as LaMarr. LaMarr discharged the gun, the bullet entering the driver's shoulder. The driver then jumped

Page 269

from the cab and ran in a westerly direction down 22nd Street. He found cover between two houses, where he hid. The two men, who had followed him, ran past his hiding place. After a short interval, the driver returned to the place where his cab was parked. On his way he hailed a police car which had been dispatched[262 MINN 114] to the area as a result of a call from one Rodney Norman, who lived across the street from where the cab had stopped. Norman had heard muffled noises, and, as he looked out his window, he saw the empty cab with both headlights and interior lights on and three men running down the block in the same direction. He then called the police. After the police arrived, they conducted an investigation in which a police dog was used. This dog was trained in the art of tracking human beings. After being given the scent, it proceeded in the direction in which the men were seen to be running and stopped at he back door of a two-floor dwelling located at 2019 11th Avenue South. The apartment in the upper floor of this building was occupied by the defendant, Wofford, and a woman not his wife. At about 2:15 a.m. the police proceeded up the stairway to the second floor and knocked on the door of Wofford's apartment. In the interview that followed, Wofford and his companion claimed that he had been in his room all the previous night and evening. The officers then went to the adjoining bedroom occupied by one Marie Culph and Charles Timberlake and found LaMarr fully dressed, apparently sleeping on a couch. After looking around, the officers left. In the meantime Svoboda had been taken to the Minneapolis General Hospital and then to Abbott Hospital where a .22-caliber bullet was removed from his right shoulder.

From the testimony of Marie Culph and Charles Timberlake, it appears that sometime between 1 and 2 a.m. Wofford and LaMarr entered the apartment which they occupied. Wofford asked if his friend, LaMarr, could remain in their room for the night. They consented, whereupon LaMarr lay down on the couch and Wofford went next door to his apartment. After the police had left, Wofford returned to Timberlake's apartment and asked Timberlake to hide a gun for him.

On January 21, 1960, the police took LaMarr and Wofford into custody. In a line-up at the city jail they were identified by Svoboda as the two passengers who had assaulted him on the night of January 15, 1960. It also appears from the record that on the night of January 14, 1960, Wofford and LaMarr had met one Ruth Mims at a bar on Washington Avenue in Minneapolis. At their request she gave them a ride in her car to Hallberg's Tavern on Washington [262 MINN 115] Avenue. Hallberg's Tavern is located about 1 block from the Spinning Wheel Tavern, where Svoboda picked up his passengers on the early morning of January 15. The witness Mims recalled that she dropped off Wofford and LaMarr sometime around midnight. The defendant was tried separately and found guilty.

1. Before sentence was imposed the defendant moved for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. This motion was based upon an affidavit of Robert LaMarr to the effect that it was not the defendant but one Wiley Green who was with him on the night the assault was committed. In this court defendant also presents the affidavit of Charles Timberlake to the effect that he and his girl friend, Marie Culph, 'were induced by Minneapolis Police to testify against James Wofford at his trial and (Marie Culph) was told if she testified against James Wofford, as instructed, by police, it would help me receive probation, as we both testified falsely against James Wofford.' In State v. Nelson, 91 Minn. 143, 155, 97 N.W. 652, 657, we said:

'A motion for a new trial based upon the ground of newly discovered evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, with the exercise of which this court will never interfere except in the case of plain abuse, and the rule applies in criminal

Page 270

as well as in civil actions. One of the controlling inquiries in determining whether a new trial should be granted on this ground is whether the new evidence, if produced, will be likely to change the result; and unless it has a substantial tendency towards showing the innocence of defendants, a new trial should not be granted.'

Because of the doubtful character of the 'newly discovered' evidence upon which the motion is based and the particular circumstances of this case, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a new trial. ¹

2. The defendant next contends that he should be granted a new trial because of prejudicial error in the reception of evidence to the effect[262 MINN 116] that he was involved in a robbery committed 10 days before the offense for which he was on trial. The error is predicated upon these facts: During the prosecution the witness Charles Timberlake testified that on the early morning of January 15, 1960, after the police had left the building where he and...