State v. Hallmark

927 N.W.2d 281 (Minn. 2019) · Supreme Court of Minnesota · May 15, 2019

Summary

The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed Marcus Hallmark’s convictions for first-degree premeditated murder and second-degree intentional murder. The court upheld the admission of an eyewitness’s recorded statement under Minnesota Rule of Evidence 807 and backpack evidence under Rule 403, but held that the district court improperly entered convictions for both murder offenses and remanded for vacation of the second-degree murder conviction.

Court
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Writing for the Court
Thissen
Jurisdiction
Minnesota
Decision date
May 15, 2019
Procedural posture
Direct appeal from convictions for first-degree premeditated murder and second-degree intentional murder following a jury trial in Hennepin County District Court.
Standard of review
Evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, and foundation determinations are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Sufficiency of the evidence is reviewed by determining whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the conviction and assuming the jury believed the State's witnesses, the evidence was sufficient to permit the verdict. Unpreserved evidentiary claims are reviewed for plain error, and claims unsupported by argument or citation are deemed waived.
Precedential value
published precedential opinion
Parties
Marcus Hallmark v. State of Minnesota
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

hearsayevidencerelevancecriminal procedureappellate procedure

Practice areas

criminal lawevidenceappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting Hallmark's mother's recorded statement under Minnesota Rule of Evidence 807.
  2. Whether the district court abused its discretion under Minnesota Rule of Evidence 403 by admitting evidence concerning a backpack and items connecting Hallmark to the murder weapon.
  3. Whether Hallmark could be convicted of both first-degree premeditated murder and second-degree intentional murder under Minnesota Statutes section 609.04.
  4. Whether Hallmark's supplemental claims concerning venue, jury impartiality, sufficiency of the evidence, juror misconduct, indictment validity, DNA testing, chain of custody, jury instructions, photographs, competency, sentencing, plea bargaining, ineffective assistance, and prosecutorial misconduct warranted relief.

Holdings

  1. The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting A.M.'s recorded statement to police under the residual hearsay exception because the totality of the circumstances established sufficient circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness and the three requirements of Rule 807 were satisfied.
  2. The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the backpack evidence because it was relevant to connect Hallmark to the Ruger handgun used in the murder, and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice or the risk of misleading the jury.
  3. A defendant may not be convicted of both first-degree premeditated murder and second-degree intentional murder because second-degree murder is a lesser degree and included offense of first-degree murder under Minnesota Statutes section 609.04.
  4. Hallmark's supplemental claims did not warrant reversal because they were meritless, unsupported, waived, or failed under the applicable standards of review.

Key quotations

Overall, evaluating the admissibility of a statement under Rule 807 requires a district court to carefully balance all of the relevant circumstances surrounding the making of the statement at issue, while also considering each of the three prongs set forth within the language of the rule. (294)
We will not make the speculative leap that the jury that heard this carefully limited testimony assumed that Hallmark participated in an uncharged burglary. (299)
Therefore, when a defendant is found guilty of both first-degree and second-degree murder, he may be convicted of only one or the other, but not both. (300)

Factual background

Thomas Russ was shot twice in the head at a Minnetonka park-and-ride while Hallmark and Russ were changing a flat tire on Hallmark's mother's vehicle. Hallmark's mother initially told a 911 operator and police that Hallmark shot Russ, but she later recanted significant portions of those statements at trial. Police recovered the murder weapon near the scene; Hallmark's DNA was identified as the major contributor on the firearm, and physical evidence connected him to ammunition and items found in a backpack that had been recovered shortly after the shooting. The jury convicted Hallmark of both first-degree premeditated murder and second-degree intentional murder.

Procedural history

A Hennepin County jury found Hallmark guilty of first-degree premeditated murder and second-degree intentional murder. The district court entered convictions on both counts and sentenced Hallmark to life without the possibility of release, although it stated that he would be sentenced only for first-degree murder. Hallmark appealed directly to the Minnesota Supreme Court, challenging evidentiary rulings, the dual convictions, and numerous claims raised in a supplemental pro se brief.

Remand instructions

Reverse the conviction for second-degree intentional murder and remand to the district court to vacate that conviction. The jury verdict finding Hallmark guilty of second-degree intentional murder remains intact. Affirm the conviction for first-degree premeditated murder.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…