State v. Jackson

977 N.W.2d 169

STATE of Minnesota, Respondent,

v.Rodney Donta JACKSON, Appellant.

A20-0779

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Filed: July 6, 2022

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota; and Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Brittany D. Lawonn, Assistant County Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for respondent.

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Julie Loftus Nelson, Assistant State Public Defender, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for appellant.

OPINION

ANDERSON, Justice.

This dispute concerns the proper remedy for a violation of a criminal defendant's asserted constitutional right to a public trial during part of a post-trial Schwartz hearing.¹ After a jury found appellant guilty of second-degree murder, one of the jurors provided feedback suggesting that she might have introduced extraneous information during deliberations. To assess the effect of this information on the verdict of the jury, the district court held a Schwartz hearing, which was divided into two parts because of scheduling conflicts of two jurors. To ensure the testimony of the first two jurors did not influence the remaining jurors, the court ordered the first part of the Schwartz hearing closed to the public. After all the jurors testified, the court found that the extraneous information did not impact the verdict. Concluding that the district court erred when it closed the first part of the Schwartz hearing to the public, the court of appeals remanded to the district court to have the two jurors who testified in private questioned again in a public hearing. Because the remand order of the court of appeals is appropriate, we affirm.

FACTS

On November 6, 2018, appellant Rodney Donta Jackson and his girlfriend drove to a gas station and convenience store in South Minneapolis. After parking, other vehicles blocked his car by parking in front of, and behind, Jackson's car. Jackson's girlfriend asked the occupants of the car parked in front, M.A. and a passenger, to move their car so that she and Jackson could leave. M.A. refused, and an altercation ensued. According to Jackson, M.A. and his passenger were rude and made violent threats. The passenger testified that Jackson repeatedly hit their car with his own vehicle and made violent threats. A bystander testified that he convinced M.A. and his passenger to disengage and go into the store but that Jackson's girlfriend started throwing objects. Jackson's girlfriend admitted throwing a container of Vaseline. The bystander arranged for the car behind Jackson to move, and Jackson and his girlfriend left the gas station. But after leaving, Jackson's girlfriend told Jackson that she wanted to retrieve something she had dropped. Jackson parked across the street and his girlfriend returned to the gas station. There, she threw a can at M.A.’s car. M.A. retaliated by throwing rocks at Jackson's girlfriend, who screamed and ran back to Jackson's car. Jackson heard the scream and saw his girlfriend running back to his car, pursued by M.A. Jackson, who had a valid permit to carry a handgun, drew his gun and fired a single shot at M.A. The shot struck M.A. in the head, killing him. Jackson and his girlfriend then drove away, ate at a restaurant, and went to see a movie. They were arrested leaving the movie theater.

The State charged Jackson with first-degree premeditated murder under Minn. Stat. § 609.185(a)(1) (2020), and second-degree intentional murder under Minn. Stat. § 609.19, subd. 1(1) (2020). The trial occurred between October 21 and November 1, 2019. The State presented eyewitness testimony and security camera footage of the incident. Jackson admitted to firing the shot that killed M.A. But Jackson testified that he saw M.A. holding a gun and claimed that he fired in self-defense. No other witnesses reported seeing M.A. armed, no weapon was found on the scene, and no witnesses reported seeing anyone touching M.A.’s body or removing anything from the scene.

The district court instructed the jury on the elements of a self-defense claim, including that "the judgment of the defendant as to the gravity of the peril to which he or another is exposed must have been reasonable under the circumstances" and that "there was no reasonable possibility of retreat to avoid the danger." The jury found Jackson guilty of second-degree intentional murder and not guilty of first-degree premeditated murder.

At the request of the district court, the jurors provided post-trial anonymous written feedback regarding their experience as jurors. One juror stated that the State should have "[p]resented 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 not guilty before I shared what's taught in permit class." Jackson moved for a post-trial Schwartz hearing based on the statements made by the juror, arguing that the statements were extraneous information that could have prejudiced the jury.

The district court granted Jackson's motion from the bench on November 26, 2019, and scheduled a Schwartz hearing for January 17, 2020. The court cautioned Jackson and the State not to contact the jurors to avoid potentially influencing the testimony. And the court noted that members of the press were present in the courtroom and asked that no reporting on the hearing occur, also to avoid influencing the jurors who would testify.

On December 16, 2019, the district court told the parties that, despite the court's request, a local newspaper had published a story about the potential juror misconduct and at least one juror reported reading the story. Further, the court had learned that two of the jurors would be out of the country on the day of the January 17, 2020 hearing: one would be on a week-long vacation and the other was working abroad from early January 2020 until the middle of May 2020. Rather than delay the hearing for over 5 months, the court proposed dividing the hearing into two parts so that the jurors who would be out of the country could be questioned before they left.

Jackson's attorney objected to the proposed division, arguing that the jurors who testified later would be influenced by the earlier testimony. The State suggested that the district court order the jurors not to follow the matter in the media to avoid influencing the later testimony. Jackson's attorney argued that the court did not have the authority to do so. According to Jackson's attorney, the court should simply enforce the subpoenas and proceed with the originally planned hearing date, thereby forcing the two jurors to cancel their trips abroad.

The district court overruled the objection and divided the Schwartz hearing into two parts. The court scheduled the first hearing on December 31, 2019, to receive testimony from the two jurors who were going abroad. The remaining jurors would still testify on January 17, 2020. To prevent the testimony of the first two jurors from influencing the testimony of the remaining jurors, the court ordered the December 31 hearing closed to the public. The court noted that under the Supreme Court of the United States decision in Waller v. Georgia , a defendant's right to a public trial may be outweighed when there is (1) an overriding interest in the closure, (2) the closure is narrowly tailored, (3) the court considers and rejects reasonable alternatives, and (4) the court makes sufficient findings on the record to justify the closure. 467 U.S. 39, 48, 104 S.Ct. 2210, 81 L.Ed.2d 31 (1984). Applying Waller to the facts here, the court first found that the closure was justified by an overriding interest in the fairness of the proceeding, and second, that the closure was no broader than necessary because the January hearing involving the 10 remaining jurors would still be open to the public. Third, the court considered and rejected alternatives to the closure, including asking the media not to report on the December hearing, waiting until all the jurors would be available, and enforcing the subpoenas notwithstanding the conflicting plans of the jurors. The court also scheduled a hearing for December 27, 2019, to give the public and the media an opportunity to object to the closure if they desired. No record exists of the December 27 hearing, though it appears that no members of the public or the media attended.

The divided Schwartz hearing occurred as scheduled, with all 12 jurors testifying over the two separately scheduled days. The court asked each juror three questions: (1) whether they recalled discussing conceal-and-carry permits or the requirements to obtain a conceal-and-carry permit; (2) if yes, what specifically they recalled; and (3) additional clarification about context, length of discussion, and the number of jurors involved. On December 31, the juror who provided the initial feedback that precipitated the Schwartz hearing testified that she discussed what Jackson would have learned in his conceal-and-carry-permit classes. She testified that she told the other jurors: "You don't kill somebody because you're mad because they trash[ ] talked 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 juror testified that this discussion came up only once. The other juror testifying on December 31 separately testified that the jury discussed the requirements for a conceal-and-carry permit and that "[t]o have a gun, you must know that if you shoot it, you are responsible for it." The juror said the discussion was not long.

The remaining 10 jurors testified individually, in public, on January 17, 2020. Each juror testified outside the presence of the others. All 10 jurors testified that permit-to-carry classes were discussed during deliberation. One juror estimated that the discussion "couldn't have been longer than an hour." The remaining jurors...