State of Minnesota v. Gregory Antoine Davis

Summary

The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed Gregory Antoine Davis’s convictions for first-degree felony murder and unlawful possession of a firearm. The court held that an erroneous burglary jury instruction did not substantially affect the verdict, that an instruction regarding consideration of lesser offenses was not plain error, and that the district court properly excluded certain alternative-perpetrator evidence. The court also held that the trial could proceed during Davis’s voluntary absences from portions of the proceedings.

Holdings

1. The district court did not err, much less commit reversible plain error, by failing to define theft or steal in the burglary instruction because the omission did not mislead the jury or permit speculation about the element.
2. The district court’s instruction was erroneous because burglary requires intent to steal at the time of entry when the defendant does not commit a felony or gross misdemeanor in the building, but the error did not affect Davis’s substantial rights and therefore was not reversible plain error.
3. The district court erred by instructing the jury that it need not consider lesser offenses, because the instruction reasonably could suggest that the jury should consider the most serious charge first; however, the error was not plain because existing precedent had not clearly established that the instruction, standing alone, was erroneous.
4. The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence of the alleged alternative perpetrator’s prior assaults and Jones’s statement that D.M. had choked her because the assault evidence was not sufficiently similar or temporally proximate to the charged murder and the statement lacked adequate circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.
5. Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.03 permits a district court to proceed with a felony trial without the defendant when the defendant is absent without justification after trial begins, and the district court properly applied that provision after warning Davis of the consequences of refusing to attend.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court plainly erred by failing to define theft in its burglary instruction.
2. Whether the district court plainly erred by instructing the jury that burglary could be established if the defendant entered without consent and intended to commit or committed a theft while in the building.
3. Whether the district court plainly erred by suggesting that the jury should consider the greater offense before lesser-included offenses.
4. Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding reverse-Spreigl evidence and hearsay concerning the alleged alternative perpetrator.
5. Whether the district court violated Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.03 by proceeding with portions of the trial while Davis was absent from the courtroom.

Disposition

affirmed