State v. Jackson

1

State of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Rodney Donta Jackson, Appellant.

No. A23-0779

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

March 11, 2024

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-CR-18-27618.

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Mary F Moriarty, Hennepin County Attorney, Brittany D. Lawonn Assistant County Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent).

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Julie Loftus Nelson, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant).

Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Frisch, Judge; and Gaïtas, Judge.

FRISCH, Judge.

Following remand from the supreme court, appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion because it did not comply with remand instructions and denied his motion for a new trial. Because we discern no abuse of discretion by the district court in its proceedings on remand or in denying appellant's motion for a new trial, we affirm.

FACTS

Following a 2018 shooting, respondent State of Minnesota charged appellant Rodney Donta Jackson with first-degree premeditated murder in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.185(a)(1) (2018), and second-degree intentional murder in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.19, subd. 1(1) (2018). The matter proceeded to trial, and the jury found Jackson not guilty of first-degree premeditated murder and guilty of second-degree intentional murder.

After the jury returned its verdict, the district court received a juror evaluation form in which a juror, M.H., revealed that they may have provided extraneous information during the jury deliberations. In response to a question asking what one of the prosecutors could have done to improve their performance, M.H. wrote:

Presented info on conceal [and] carry-responsibility of self defense should have explained what [Jackson] would have learned in conceal and carry class regarding MN law about obligation to retreat. This jury was going for self defense and [n]ot guilty before I shared what's taught in permit class. Even regarding just discharging a weapon in [Minneapolis] even if he'd shot at ground or in the air! As you suggested.

The district court notified the parties, and Jackson moved for a Schwartz hearing.^[1] The district court held a Schwartz hearing in two parts. During the first part of the hearing, the district court closed the courtroom to the public during the testimony of two jurors, including M.H., who testified as follows:

THE COURT: So do you recall any discussion during deliberations about classes or instruction on concealed carry or permit to carry?

M.H.: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. Can you tell me specifically what you recall about that?

M.H.: What I recall is that we had all gone around and talked about why we believed what we believed. We were each given a chance to share. And I brought it up. I asked if anybody else had a permit. Somebody else did. And I said: One thing that [Jackson] would have found out in his class is that it's very dangerous to ever use your weapon because it will be held against you many times, even if you try to use it for good purposes. . . . .

Okay. And I said: The one thing that you learn is that if you have the option to get away, if you can safely get away, you get away instead of using a lethal weapon. You don't kill somebody because you're mad because they trashed talked to you or did something to you. It would be because you feel like your life is absolutely threatened and you didn't have any other option.

THE COURT: Okay. So you-your recollection is that you were the person that brought this up? M.H.: I brought it up.

THE COURT: Okay. And you shared it with the whole group or a few people or-

M.H.: I shared it with the group. I said that that's-I said that he should have known that. But I said it was no different than what the prosecution had brought up, and that is that he had- he was already in the car. He could already get away. And so we talk-we had talked about all those things. So I said it goes along with what he would have learned in class.

THE COURT: Okay. And did that come up once or more than once? I know it's hard because deliberations are not linear particularly. But you recall this part when you were going around in a circle and it came up then. Did it then come up later as well, or was that just it? M.H.: I don't recall it coming up later.

THE COURT: Okay. Was there much discussion of that after you shared what you told us?

M.H.: No. The only discussion was the other person who had a permit also said that that's what she learned.

THE COURT: Okay.

M.H.: Except if you're in Florida or Texas.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Those are the questions that I have.

The remaining ten jurors testified during a second hearing in a courtroom open to the public. Jackson then moved for a new trial, which the district court ultimately denied. Jackson appealed.

In his first appeal, Jackson challenged in pertinent part the district court's partial closure of the Schwartz hearing as a violation of his constitutional rights and the denial of his motion for a new trial. State v. Jackson, 964 N.W.2d 659, 664 (Minn.App. 2021), aff'd, 977 N.W.2d 169 (Minn. 2022). We concluded that the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial extends to a Schwartz hearing and that the closure of that portion of the Schwartz hearing violated Jackson's Sixth Amendment rights. Id. at 665-66. We concluded that the appropriate remedy was for the district court to repeat the closed portion of the Schwartz hearing with the two jurors and, if their testimony was materially different from their testimony in the first hearing, to recall the other ten jurors for additional testimony. Id. at 666-67. We did not reach the issue of whether the district court erred by declining to grant a new trial. Id. at 667.

Jackson appealed our decision to the supreme court, and the supreme court affirmed. State v. Jackson, 977 N.W.2d 169, 171 (Minn. 2022) (Jackson I). The supreme court instructed the district court to repeat the closed portion of the Schwartz hearing. Id. at 176. The supreme court also instructed the district court that "[i]f the two jurors testify in a manner that is materially different from how they testified in the original proceeding, then the district court should conduct a new, public Schwartz hearing involving the remaining 10 jurors." Id.

On remand, the district court conducted a public Schwartz hearing with the two jurors. Juror M.H. testified as follows:

THE COURT: . . . During deliberations on that case, was there any discussion of conceal carry?

M.H.: At the very end after we had decided-okay. Two things. One thing, when we began I asked if anybody else had a conceal and carry permit, but we didn't discuss it. At the very end after the jury had already made their decisions-do you want me to amplify?

THE COURT: Yes.

M.H.: Okay. So we talked about there's different reasons for carrying a gun. It can be-it can be legal, you can be military, you can be hunting, or you can carry it as self-defense, which isn't a bad idea today. But as self-defense, it means, then, that somebody-you are feeling like your life is threatened. It's your life or their life. So we talked about that as a jury.

THE COURT: Okay.

M.H.: And the-do you want me to keep going?

THE COURT: Well, you're telling me this was after the verdict form was signed?

M.H.: After the verdict form was signed and we had already decided, we had gone around and what everybody had decided, then-okay. So there were three reasons-I believe there was three reasons why we came to the conclusion that we did, and my comment was it would go along with the self-defense if he had a conceal and carry, which I didn't know if he did. He had a permit-I didn't know what kind of permit, if he got it in Texas or where he got it-but then he would have heard also what it meant to have self-defense.

THE COURT: Okay.

M.H.: When you're allowed to kill somebody.

THE COURT: Do you recall whether or not the Court gave you any instruction on self-defense under the law? M.H.: I do not recall about the Court giving-talking about self-defense. I think that it's something that we all discussed, because you decide when it's okay to kill somebody and not kill somebody.

THE COURT: Do you recall any instruction regarding a duty to retreat? M.H.: No.

Jackson argued that M.H.'s testimony was materially different than their testimony at the first Schwartz hearing and requested that the district court recall the remaining ten jurors for further testimony. The district court denied the request, determining that M.H.'s testimony was not materially different at the second hearing, stating that M.H.'s "statement was more expansive than [their] previous statement" and noting "that in the transcript of the previous hearing, [they] made comments about how nervous [they were]. [They] did not appear to be so nervous today." The district court concluded that "the differences were not material" and denied Jackson's motion for a new trial.

Jackson appeals.

DECISION

Jackson argues that the district court abused its discretion by failing to comply with remand instructions and by denying his motion for a new trial. We disagree and address each argument in turn.

I. The district court did not abuse its discretion in its proceedings on remand.

The supreme court instructed the district court on remand to reconduct the portion of the Schwartz hearing that was improperly closed to the public and to conduct a public Schwartz hearing with the remaining ten jurors "[i]f the two jurors testify in a manner that is materially different from how they testified in the original proceeding." Jackson I, ...