State v. Beecroft

813 N.W.2d 814

STATE of Minnesota, Respondent,

v.Nicole Marie BEECROFT, Appellant (A09–0390),andNicole Marie Beecroft, petitioner, Appellant,

v.State of Minnesota, Respondent (A10–1604).

Nos. A09–0390, A10–1604.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 23, 2012.

Syllabus by the Court

The conduct of a private government contractor was state action for purposes of an alleged constitutional violation when that contractor served part-time as a county official and nearly all of the alleged misconduct occurred in the contractor's capacity as a county official.

The harmful conduct of certain third-party state actors did not in and of itself warrant a new trial because even though the state actors' conduct violated the defendant's due process right to present a complete defense by substantially interfering with the defendant's potential witnesses, the interference did not affect the defendant's substantial rights given the strength of the State's case and the defendant's failure to mitigate the harm caused by her witnesses' unavailability.

A third-party state actor's interference with the defendant's consulting expert does not warrant a new trial under this court's plain error standard of review because the defendant did not present evidence of specific harm that she suffered as a result of her consulting expert's decision to stop consulting with her during her trial.

This court will exercise its supervisory powers and reverse a defendant's conviction in the interests of justice when the conduct of certain third-party state actors risked undermining the defendant's constitutional rights, contravened clear legislative intent, and interfered with the statutorily-mandated independence of medical examiners.

The district court did not err when it admitted the out-of-court statement made by a defendant who was 17 years and 9 months of age at the time of the statement was made because the defendant received an adequate Miranda warning given the defendant's age, the defendant's mother was present when the Miranda warning was given, the police informed the defendant about the serious nature of the potential adult-court charges the defendant faced, and because under the totality of the circumstances, the defendant waived her Miranda rights.

Lori Swanson, Minnesota Attorney General, Kimberly R. Parker, Assistant Attorney General, Saint Paul, MN and Peter Orput, Washington County Attorney, Stillwater, MN, for respondent.

John M. Stuart, Minnesota State Public Defender, Sara L. Martin, Assistant State Public Defender, Saint Paul, MN, for appellant.

Julie Ann Jonas, Innocence Project of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN; and David F. Herr, Maslon Edelman Borman & Brand, LLP, Minneapolis, MN, for Amicus Curiae Innocence Project of Minnesota.

OPINION

ANDERSON, PAUL H., Justice.

Nicole Marie Beecroft was found guilty of first-degree premeditated murder under Minn.Stat. § 609.185(a)(1) (2010), for the stabbing death of her newborn baby. The Washington County District Court convicted Beecroft of this offense and sentenced Beecroft, who was 17 years old and 9 months of age at the time of her baby's death, to life imprisonment without the possibility of release. Beecroft filed a direct appeal, but that appeal was stayed in order for Beecroft to file a petition for postconviction relief. After an evidentiary hearing, the postconviction court denied Beecroft's petition. Beecroft alleges in her consolidated direct and postconviction appeal that (1) the State deprived her of her due process right to present a complete defense, (2) she was denied effective assistance of counsel, and (3) the district court erred when it violated her rights under Miranda v. Arizona by admitting a statement she made to the police. In the alternative, Beecroft argues that we should reverse her conviction in the interests of justice.

The key factual issue at trial was whether Beecroft's baby was alive or dead when stabbed by Beecroft. Each party presented testimony on this issue from medical examiners and other forensic pathologists; but, certain state officials interfered with Beecroft's forensic experts, which interference undermined the integrity of the judicial system in this case. While the trial errors alleged by Beecroft may not in and of themselves warrant a reversal and the grant of a new trial, we conclude that, when the existence of the alleged errors is combined with the improper conduct of certain state officials, a reversal is warranted in the interests of justice. Therefore, we reverse Beecroft's conviction and remand for a new trial.

On April 10, 2007, the Saint Paul and Oakdale police departments investigated an anonymous tip that led the police to believe that appellant Nicole Marie Beecroft had given birth to a stillborn baby and then placed the baby's body in the trash. As part of their investigation, the police went to the house in Oakdale where Beecroft lived with her mother. At Beecroft's home, the police observed evidence that Beecroft may have been bleeding, but they did not find a baby. The police then went to Beecroft's workplace where she apparently had just finished her shift. After being confronted by the police, Beecroft agreed to ride in a squad car to the police station to answer questions.

Beecroft's Statements to the Police

Once at the police station, the police gave Beecroft a Miranda warning. Beecroft told the police she understood her rights and wanted to talk to the police. Beecroft's mother, who had gone to the police station of her own accord, was present when the Miranda warning was given and when Beecroft was questioned. Beecroft explained to the police that she first suspected that she might be pregnant in July 2006. She admitted taking a pregnancy test in February 2007 and that the test was positive. Beecroft then told the police that she gave birth to a baby girl on the concrete laundry-room floor of her home at approximately 3:00 a.m. on April 9, 2007. Beecroft said she was scared when the baby was born and she lay with the baby for at least 10 minutes. According to Beecroft, the baby was not breathing, did not move, and was “[p]ale white.” Beecroft also told the police that the baby's eyes were closed and that she did not attempt to give the baby CPR or clear the baby's airway, but Beecroft did flick the baby's feet to see if the baby would respond. Beecroft said that “it did not breath[e], it did not move, it didn't do anything, it just laid there, like a Barbie or doll.” When asked whether she had looked closely at the baby, Beecroft responded that she never turned on the light to look at the baby because she did not want to see a dead baby. Beecroft said she eventually wrapped the baby's body in a towel and put the baby in a garbage can outside her home.

During the police interview, Beecroft said that if the baby had been breathing, she would have taken the baby to a hospital and put the baby up for adoption. Beecroft said she did not name the baby. Beecroft also explained that the only person she told about her pregnancy until the birth was her friend, E.M. Beecroft did not tell her mother about the pregnancy or the birth.

Toward the end of interview, the police asked Beecroft if she had “heard of words on TV like homicide and murder.” The police then told Beecroft that they were “going to find out the truth,” that the facts would “play out,” and that an autopsy would show if she was lying. Beecroft insisted that she was telling the truth. Beecroft eventually started crying and said, “[Y]ou guys are accusing me of it! I did not kill it!” At about this point, Beecroft's mother stopped the interview. The police station interview was about 50–minutes long. Beecroft was not arrested after this interview and was permitted to leave the station with her mother. Beecroft then went with her mother to a hospital for treatment of postpartum bleeding and cramping.

Meanwhile, the police obtained a search warrant for Beecroft's home. The police discovered the baby's body inside a trashcan next to the home. The body, wrapped in a towel saturated with blood, was inside a brown paper bag that was inside a black plastic garbage bag. The police observed “what appeared to be wounds” on the baby's body, and found a bloody knife in the bag with the body. Investigators also summoned personnel from the Ramsey County Medical Examiner's office to the scene. Later that day, Dr. Kelly Mills, an Assistant Ramsey County Medical Examiner, conducted an autopsy on the baby's body at her office with the police present. Dr. Mills reported that the baby was alive at the time of birth and that there were more than 100 stab wounds on the baby's body.

The next morning, April 11, three police officers questioned Beecroft in her hospital room. Beecroft's mother was also present during this interview. The police again gave Beecroft a Miranda warning and Beecroft affirmed that she understood her Miranda rights. But the police did not warn Beecroft that she could be charged as an adult and, in contrast to the interview the night before, the police did not ask Beecroft whether she wished to speak to them before beginning the questioning.

During the hospital interview, the police started their questioning by asking essentially the same questions they had asked during the first interview. Beecroft responded by expanding on the information that she gave the police the previous day. Approximately 9 minutes into the interview, the police told Beecroft they had found the baby's body in a garbage bag at her home. When Beecroft's mother expressed disbelief, the police repeated the information and told Beecroft that the baby's body displayed “[a] lot of injuries.” The police continued their questioning by stating: “[W]e understand that people make mistakes and ... this is an extremely hard time for you. But, ... we need the honest truth.” Beecroft then started to cry and told police, “I went into panic mode and I stabbed her.” When the police asked whether the baby...