Summary
The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed Edison Joseph Mahkuk's convictions for aiding and abetting two first-degree premeditated murders committed for the benefit of a gang, along with the denial of his postconviction petition. The court held that the aiding-and-abetting jury instructions improperly relieved the state of proving Mahkuk's knowledge and intent beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the error was not harmless. The court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial, while addressing additional issues for guidance on retrial, including courtroom closure and gang-expert testimony.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the aiding-and-abetting jury instruction improperly relieved the State of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Mahkuk knew a crime would be committed and intended his presence or actions to further the crime.
- Whether the partial courtroom closure during portions of the trial violated Mahkuk's constitutional right to a public trial.
- Whether the trial court properly admitted gang-expert testimony.
- Whether the trial court properly allowed evidence concerning Mahkuk's prior firearm-possession arrest.
- Whether the trial court erred by refusing to compel the State to accept Mahkuk's proposed stipulation to gang membership.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a mistrial after a witness referenced inadmissible firearm evidence.
- Whether newly available accomplice testimony entitled Mahkuk to postconviction relief.
Holdings
- The jury instruction was erroneous because it treated Mahkuk's knowledge that a crime would be committed and his intent that his presence or acts further the crime as factors the jury merely needed to consider, rather than elements the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The instruction also permitted conviction based on intentional presence without requiring intent to aid or encourage the crime.
- The instructional error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and required reversal of the convictions and a new trial.
- The partial closure was not shown to be constitutionally proper because the trial court failed to make adequate findings supporting the closure.
- The gang expert's testimony did not exceed the permissible scope of gang-expert testimony and was not an abuse of discretion.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion by ruling that evidence of Mahkuk's prior arrest for illegal firearm possession was relevant to proving that the Native Mob met the statutory definition of a criminal gang.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to compel the State to accept Mahkuk's proposed stipulation that he was a Native Mob member.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying a mistrial after the gang expert briefly referred to firearm possession.
Key quotations
“Thus, to find Mahkuk guilty, the jury could not simply "consider" whether Mahkuk knew a crime was going to be committed and whether he intended his presence to encourage or further the murder of Burns and Benjamin, the jury had to find that the state proved those facts beyond a reasonable doubt.” (682)
“The court's instructions left the jury with the impression that Mahkuk's intentional presence was sufficient to find guilt without also requiring the jury to find that he intended his presence to encourage or further the commission of the crime.” (683)
Factual background
Mahkuk was charged as an aider and abettor in the November 26, 2004, shooting deaths of Del Anthony Benjamin and Joseph George Burns at the Little Earth Housing Complex in Minneapolis. Witnesses placed Mahkuk with alleged participants in the shooting, but their accounts differed about whether Mahkuk possessed a firearm or participated in the shooting. The State also presented evidence concerning Mahkuk's membership in the Native Mob and statements he made during an earlier firearm-possession arrest.
Procedural history
A Hennepin County jury convicted Mahkuk of two counts of first-degree premeditated murder for the benefit of a gang. The district court merged the counts as to each victim, entered two murder judgments, and imposed consecutive life sentences. Mahkuk's direct appeal was stayed while he pursued postconviction relief; the postconviction court denied relief. The Minnesota Supreme Court consolidated the appeals, reversed the convictions because of erroneous aiding-and-abetting jury instructions, and remanded for a new trial.
Remand instructions
Remanded for a new trial.