State v. Zornes, A12–0463.

• Decision Date: 31 May 2013
• Docket Number: No. A12–0463.,A12–0463.
• Citation: 831 N.W.2d 609
• Parties: STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Tracy Alan ZORNES, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

831 N.W.2d 609

STATE of Minnesota, Respondent,

v.Tracy Alan ZORNES, Appellant.

No. A12–0463.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 31, 2013.

Syllabus by the Court

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it sequestered a witness during voir dire because the district court has substantial discretion to sequester witnesses during the trial process, and voir dire is part of the trial process, Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209, 130 S.Ct. 721, 175 L.Ed.2d 675 (2010).

The removal of a person from the courtroom was too trivial under the factors outlined in State v. Lindsey, 632 N.W.2d 652 (Minn.2001), to implicate the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights.

Absent an exception, the police must have a warrant before conducting searches under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution; therefore, when the district court correctly concluded that no exception applied in this case, the court did not err when it concluded that the police's warrantless search for DNA evidence on the defendant was unlawful.

Any error in the district court's admission of the defendant's disputed statement was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

The admission of physical evidence that is both sufficiently connected to a defendant and to the scene of the alleged crime generally falls within a district court's discretion; therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted several items found with the defendant that were sufficiently connected to both the defendant and the crime scene.

A district court must weigh the five factors that we outlined in State v. Jones, 271 N.W.2d 534 (Minn.1978), to determine whether a defendant's prior conviction is more probative than prejudicial and when the court properly weighed the Jones factors it did not abuse its discretion by concluding that the defendant's three prior felony convictions could be admitted for impeachment purposes.Lori Swanson, Attorney General, James B. Early, Assistant Attorney General, Saint Paul, MN; and Brian Melton, Clay County Attorney, Moorhead, MN, for respondent.

David W. Merchant, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Steven P. Russett, Assistant State Public Defender, Saint Paul, MN, for appellant.

OPINION

ANDERSON, PAUL H., Justice.

Tracy Alan Zornes was convicted of the first-degree premeditated murders of Megan Londo and John Cadotte, arson for setting a fire that destroyed the apartment building where Londo and Cadotte were murdered, and theft of Cadotte's car. On direct appeal, Zornes argues that the district court committed four reversible errors. First, Zornes argues that the court's removal of two persons from the courtroom during voir dire violated his right to a public trial under the United States and Minnesota Constitutions. Second, he argues that the court violated his Fourth Amendment rights when it admitted a statement Zornes made to the police that he claims was made during an unlawful search. Third, Zornes argues that the court abused its discretion when it admitted into evidence several items that were found when Zornes was arrested. Finally, Zornes argues that the court abused its discretion when it ruled that, if he chose to testify at trial, the State could attempt to impeach him using three prior felony convictions. Because we conclude that none of the alleged errors requires reversal, we affirm.

In February 2010, 25–year–old Megan Londo was trying to stay clean and to regain custody of her children. She was also contemplating a move from Naytahwaush to Moorhead so that she could be closer to her children. After Londo had a physical altercation with one of her family members, Londo's fiancé arranged for her to stay with his sister, C.C., in Moorhead. The apartment building where C.C. and her boyfriend, S.G., lived consisted of three apartment units: C.C. lived in a unit that occupied the entire lower-level of the building; “C.” and his girlfriend, S.P., lived in one of the two upstairs apartments; and J.M. and his 2–year old daughter lived in the other upstairs apartment. Londo moved in with C.C. by the middle of February 2010.

On Thursday, February 18, 2010, S.G. learned that the police were seeking to arrest him for a probation violation stemming from a felony DWI conviction. Thus, S.G. decided to flee to Wahpeton, North Dakota, where his parents lived, but he did not have a car, so he asked John Cadotte to give him a ride in Cadotte's red Honda Civic. Cadotte was willing to provide rides for people, usually in return for some gas money. Sometime that evening, Cadotte drove S.G., C.C., and Londo to Wahpeton. Because Cadotte was planning to hang out with a friend near C.C. and S.G.'s apartment later that night, he asked for permission to stay at their apartment if he decided to drink. When S.G. and C.C. were dropped off in Wahpeton, Londo was entrusted with possession of the only key to C.C.'s apartment. While traveling back to Moorhead, Londo used Cadotte's cellphone to contact a friend in an attempt to acquire some prescription pain pills.

That same evening, Londo was looking for transportation to Naytahwaush. A mutual acquaintance connected Londo with Zornes, who was staying in Moorhead with E.M., his on-again, off-again girlfriend. Apparently things were not going well between Zornes and E.M., so Zornes used E.M.'s cellphone to contact a female friend, S.B., in an attempt to arrange a ride back to his home in Naytahwaush. S.B. also happened to be a friend of Londo's. S.B. attempted to find a ride for Zornes but she was unable to do so. During these conversations, Londo also said that she was looking for a ride home to Naytahwaush.

In a subsequent conversation, Zornes told S.B. that his sister had agreed to give him a ride to Naytahwaush. Knowing that Londo was also looking for a ride there, S.B. asked Zornes if Londo could ride with him and Zornes said that was fine. S.B. then gave Londo E.M.'s cellphone number so that Londo could contact Zornes. At 9:08 p.m., a call was placed from Cadotte's cellphone to E.M.'s cellphone. Shortly after 9:08 p.m. on February 18, Zornes abruptly left E.M.'s apartment. When he left the apartment, Zornes took with him a tote bag containing beadwork and a duffel bag filled with clothing. E.M. testified that she was upset about Zornes's abrupt departure, and as a result she took “[q]uite a few” pills, including between 10 and 12 Ambien and Tylenol PM.

About an hour later, at approximately 10:00 p.m., Zornes was seen with Londo and Cadotte in the parking lot of C.C.'s apartment building. More specifically, J.M.'s then-girlfriend saw two men and one woman get out of a small red car and go into C.C.'s apartment. The girlfriend observed that one of the men was carrying a duffel bag. Her description of the man carrying the duffle bag matched Zornes's appearance, and her description of the small red car was consistent with the red Honda Civic owned by Cadotte. J.M.'s girlfriend later saw a photo of Zornes on the Internet and testified at trial that she recognized him right away as the man that she had seen in the parking lot.

Around 11:50 p.m., E.M. received a text message from Cadotte's cellphone—a number that she did not recognize. The text was an inquiry if she was interested in purchasing 100 10–milligram pills. E.M. assumed the pills contained hydrocodone. Because E.M. did not recognize the cellphone number of the phone that was being used to send the text, she asked who the sender was and received the initials “T.Z.” E.M. testified that she understood “T.Z.” to mean Tracy Zornes, the only person she knew with those initials. Following this initial exchange, there were many telephone calls and text messages exchanged between Cadotte's and E.M.'s cellphones, but a police detective testified that the phone records indicated the people using the two cellphones were not able to reach each other. E.M. testified that, because she had taken several pills after Zornes left her apartment, she did not remember any of the events from that night or from the early hours of the next morning.

The three apartments in C.C.'s building all shared the same ventilation system, and S.P. testified that the residents shared “everything, every noise, everything.” In the early morning hours of February 19, the upstairs residents heard a lot of noise from the downstairs apartment. The noise included “a lot of arguing,” music, and the sounds of a small party or “get together.” C. and J.M. both testified that they did not think much of the noise because there was frequently arguing in the downstairs apartment. C. testified that he heard the sounds of two male voices and one female voice, while J.M. testified that he heard the sound of one male voice “talking and talking and talking and talking.” J.M. said that he could not sleep that night and so he spent much of the night on his computer and looking out of a window in his apartment. While looking out the window, J.M. saw a man wearing a black coat and a hat make two trips in and out of the downstairs apartment and walk along the trail to the parking lot. J.M. said that during at least one of those trips the man was carrying something.

Both C. and J.M. testified that, early in the morning, they heard sounds from the downstairs apartment that sounded like people having sex. S.P., C., and J.M. also all heard what they described as loud banging or a series of loud smacks. J.M. described the noise as “like a wiffle ball bat hitting a leather couch,” and C. described it as “like somebody beating on something.” Again, the upstairs neighbors did not think much of the noise because the downstairs residents were often arguing or being disruptive. J.M. testified that at about 6:30 or 6:45 a.m. he saw the same man he had seen walking to the parking lot earlier leave from the downstairs apartment, this time for good.

At about 7:00 a.m., various signs alerted the upstairs residents that there was a fire in the building: S.P. said she awoke to the sound of the carbon...