Townsend v. State

• Decision Date: 27 June 2002
• Docket Number: No. C6-02-61.,C6-02-61.
• Citation: 646 N.W.2d 218
• Parties: Otha E. TOWNSEND, a/k/a Umar M. Abdullah, Petitioner, Appellant, v. STATE of Minnesota, Respondent.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

646 N.W.2d 218

Otha E. TOWNSEND, a/k/a Umar M. Abdullah, Petitioner, Appellant, v. STATE of Minnesota, Respondent.

No. C6-02-61.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 27, 2002.

Rehearing Denied August 12, 2002.

Otha E. Townsend, a/k/a, Umar M. Abdullah, pro se, Bayport, MN, Appellant's Attorney.

Michael A. Hatch, Minnesota Attorney General, Susan Gaertner, Ramsey County Attorney, Mark Nathan Lystig, Assistant Ramsey County Attorney, St. Paul, MN, Respondent's Attorneys.

Considered and decided by the court en banc without oral argument.

OPINION

BLATZ, Chief Justice.

Otha Townsend appeals from the denial of his second petition for postconviction relief. Appellant Townsend was convicted of first-degree murder in 1994, and on direct appeal he raised the admissibility of evidence relating to an attempted murder he later pleaded guilty to, committed on the same night as the murder. We held that certain of the evidence was inadmissible but its admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, applying a standard that the error is harmless if the weight of all the other evidence is such that it "justifies the verdict regardless of the erroneous admission." State v. Townsend, 546 N.W.2d 292, 297 (Minn.1996) [hereinafter Townsend I] (citation and quotation omitted). One year later in State v. Juarez, 572 N.W.2d 286, 291 n. 6 (Minn.1997), we acknowledged that we had on occasion previously "misstated the significance of the strength of the evidence of guilt in harmless error analysis," citing as an example Townsend I. Townsend then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which the district court treated as a petition for postconviction relief under Chapter 590, in which Townsend sought application of the correct harmless error standard and a new trial. The postconviction court denied the petition, finding that "[a]ll the ingredients of the proper test and its proper application" were present in the ruling on direct appeal. We affirm on the basis that application of the harmless error standard Townsend seeks results in the conclusion that the admission of the erroneously admitted evidence was harmless.

To address appellant's claim, we need not restate the facts in detail-they are fully set forth in our decision addressing appellant's direct appeal, Townsend I, 546 N.W.2d at 294-95. Lisa Johnson was a neighbor and friend of Candis Koch-Wilson. At about 1:30 a.m. on October 31, 1992, Koch-Wilson brought appellant, a long-time friend, to Johnson's home for appellant to sample and possibly purchase marijuana from Johnson. They made a deal for a purchase, and appellant left with Koch-Wilson to go to an automatic teller machine.

About ten minutes later, appellant returned to Johnson's home alone. Johnson got the marijuana and, with appellant following, headed downstairs to her living room to place the marijuana in a bag. Johnson remembers nothing else until she awoke sometime later on her couch bleeding and having difficulty breathing. She had been shot in the mouth and in the back of the head. Unable to see, she felt her way along the walls of her home to a door, and made her way to the home of a neighbor, who then called 911. Johnson later identified appellant as her assailant.

At approximately 4:00 a.m., a newspaper carrier discovered Koch-Wilson's body on a street not far from an apartment where appellant stayed occasionally. Koch-Wilson had been shot five times in the head. At the nearby apartment police found a duffle bag containing .25 ACP caliber ammunition. Bullets from Koch-Wilson's body and from Johnson were analyzed and also found to be .25 ACP caliber. There was insufficient evidence to show that the same weapon fired the bullets, however, and a weapon was never recovered.

About a week after the murder, appellant's car was found on fire in a remote location in Eagan. An accelerant had been used. Although the license plates had been removed and the vehicle identification number (VIN) on the dashboard was not found, police were otherwise able to identify appellant as the owner. Subsequent DNA testing showed that blood found behind the front passenger seat in the car was consistent with Koch-Wilson's DNA.

Appellant was indicted for first- and second-degree murder for the offense against Koch-Wilson, and two counts of attempted murder for the offense against Johnson. The district court granted the motion to sever the attempted murder from the murder charges, and before trial on the murder charges appellant moved to suppress all evidence of the Johnson attempted murder. The district court denied the motion, but clarified for the jury that such evidence would be admitted only for the purpose of proving identity.¹

At trial, Johnson testified that after she came to, she could not see, and felt her way through the home, smearing blood on the walls. Johnson also revealed that she was seven months pregnant at the time. Seven witnesses testified to Johnson's physical state after the assault, as well as the condition of the apartment. Large, full-color photographs of the Johnson home were used to illustrate the attack on Johnson.

The jury found appellant guilty and he was sentenced to life in prison. On direct appeal, he alleged that the admission of evidence of the attempted murder of Johnson was so prejudicial that he was denied a fair trial. We held that the probative value of some of the evidence of the Johnson offense was significantly outweighed by the possibility of unfair prejudice:

If evidence relating to the Johnson attempted murder was relevant to either motive or identity, a description of the crime scene may have been helpful.

Several additional descriptions, plus a host of photos, could do nothing but inflame the jury improperly. Similar cumulative evidence of Johnson's injuries, along with evidence of her pregnancy, also should have been excluded.

Townsend I, 546 N.W.2d at 296.

We then proceeded to apply harmless error analysis, noting that for error to be harmless, we must be able to declare the belief that the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 297. We quoted cases stating that:

"Harmless beyond a reasonable doubt" does not mean there must be absolutely no doubt of guilt, rather it means that the weight of all the other evidence is such that it "justifies the verdict regardless of the erroneous admission * * *." State v. Ford, 539 N.W.2d 214, 227 (Minn.1995), cert, denied, , 116 S.Ct. 1362, 134 L.Ed.2d 529 (1996).

"[The defendant's] burden is to demonstrate that, despite viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the government and drawing all reasonable inferences to support the jury's verdict, the jury could still have entertained a reasonable doubt as to his guilt." [United States v. Foote, 920 F.2d 1395, 1401 (8th Cir.1990) ]. "We have a natural hesitation to reverse a conviction on errors * * * in the admission of evidence, where the evidence of guilt is strong * * *, [b]ut to reach the conclusion[ ] that the errors were without prejudice we must hold that the guilt of the defendant was conclusively proven." State v. Flowers, 262 Minn. 164, 168, 114 N.W.2d 78, 81 (1962) (quoting State v. Hutchison, 121 Minn. 405, 409, 141 N.W. 483, 484 (1913)).

Townsend I, 546 N.W.2d at 297. We then recounted the strong evidence of appellant's guilt, including the blood on the floor of appellant's car matching the blood of the victim, that appellant was the last person to see the victim alive, the ammunition found in appellant's belongings that matched the bullets in Koch-Wilson and Johnson, and evidence of appellant's flight. Id.

Appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief, which was denied. Townsend v. State, 582 N.W.2d 225, 288-29 (Minn. 1998) (holding ineffective assistance of counsel claim unsupported by record and other claims raised were known at time of direct appeal and thus barred). He then filed a petition for habeas corpus in the district court of Ramsey County, which is not the county where he is incarcerated. See Minn.Stat. § 589.02 (2000) (providing a petition for habeas corpus must be filed in the county where petitioner is incarcerated). For purposes of arguing the petition, appellant was represented by counsel, who stipulated that the matter could be considered as a petition for postconviction relief rather than as for habeas corpus. A petition for postconviction relief is brought in the county where the petitioner was convicted, in this instance Ramsey County.

In his petition, appellant argued that in State v. Juarez, 572 N.W.2d 286 (Minn. 1997), this court announced a new standard to be applied for harmless error analysis, specifically identifying as an erroneous application of the standard our decision in Townsend I:

We concede that on occasion we have inadvertently misstated the significance of the strength of the evidence of guilt in harmless error analysis. An example is our decision in Townsend, on which the court of appeals relied. 546 N.W.2d at 292. To the extent that decision, or any other decision of this court or the court of appeals, misstates the significance of the strength of the evidence in harmless error analysis, the decision should not be followed.

Juarez, 572 N.W.2d at 291 n. 6. Appellant alleged in his habeas petition that he is now entitled to have the erroneous admission of the Johnson attempted murder evidence evaluated for harmless error under the correct standard, and that based on that standard he is entitled to a new trial. The postconviction court denied the petition, interpreting Townsend I to have properly decided that any error in the admission of the Johnson attempted murder evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

I.

On review of a postconviction proceeding, this court's role is limited to determining whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain the findings of the postconviction court. State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252, 243 N.W.2d 737, 741 (1976). A postconviction court's decision will not be...