Opinion ID: 1889175
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Morales's Trial

Text: While Vega-Lara's appeal was pending, the State tried Morales for first-degree murder, Minn.Stat. § 609.185(a)(3), and three lesser-included offenses: intentional second-degree murder, Minn.Stat. § 609.19, subd. 1(1) (2008); unintentional second-degree felony murder during the commission of an assault, Minn.Stat. § 609.19, subd. 2(1) (2008); and unintentional second-degree felony murder during an aggravated robbery, § 609.19, subd. 2(1). During Morales's trial, the State filed a motion under Minn.Stat. § 609.09 (2008), seeking to compel Vega-Larawho was claiming a Fifth Amendment privilegeto testify under a grant of immunity. Vega-Lara challenged the State's motion to compel him to testify. Vega-Lara claimed he could assert a valid Fifth Amendment privilege regardless of a grant of immunity because he had a legitimate fear of a perjury prosecution arising out of a conflict between what he said in his own trial and what he may say at this trial. The district court acknowledged that even with use immunity, Vega-Lara would be subject to a perjury prosecution if he lied at Morales's trial. Nonetheless, the court granted the State's motion to compel Vega-Lara to testify, explaining that if Vega-Lara was successful on his appeal and was retried, nothing that Vega-Lara said at Morales's trial could be used against him at the retrial. The court further explained that the State would be able to use Vega-Lara's testimony against him in a prosecution for perjury only if [Vega-Lara] were to make a false statement under oath. At trial, the State called C.M., M.R., and M.F. to testify. Each witness testified that three men came to the house on March 13, 2006, and identified Vega-Lara and Solorzano-O'Brien as two of the three men who were present in the house when Mesa-Ortiz was killed. C.M. and M.R. described Vega-Lara as being very nervous, aggressive, bossy, and having a strange attitude. C.M. and M.R. described the third man as quiet, young, and wearing a hat low on his head. Neither C.M., M.R., nor M.F. identified Morales as the third man. [1] M.F. testified that after the three men arrived at the house, he left the kitchen where he had been preparing food to go to a grocery store. C.M. testified that she went into a bedroom with Vega-Lara and had sex for approximately five minutes, after which Vega-Lara asked to have sex again. C.M. told Vega-Lara he would have to pay again, and he then left the bedroom. At that time, C.M. noticed the third man was still sitting in the living room, but had moved to a different seat. C.M. also testified that shortly after Vega-Lara left the bedroom, she heard people struggling in the dining room, and then after awhile she heard a gunshot. She then heard people running, like people getting out. Similarly, M.R. testified that she heard struggling and a gunshot while she was in the bedroom with Solorzano-O'Brien. After the gunshot, Solorzano-O'Brien ran out of the bedroom and M.R. hid in a closet. When C.M. and M.R. emerged from their respective bedrooms some time later, they did not see anyone else in the house. Because C.M. and M.R. did not witness the shooting, they did not know who shot Mesa-Ortiz or if the third man was involved in the shooting. M.F. testified that when he returned to the house, another man had arrived at the house and discovered Mesa-Ortiz lying face down in the backyard. After trying to revive Mesa-Ortiz, M.F. and the other man put Mesa-Ortiz in a car and attempted to take him to a hospital. When they could not locate a hospital, they stopped and called the police. Police officers testified that when they arrived at the car, Mesa-Ortiz was dead and the front pockets of Mesa-Ortiz's pants were pulled out. An autopsy revealed that a gunshot wound to the chest caused Mesa-Ortiz's death, and a forensic specialist determined that Mesa-Ortiz's death was a homicide. Several police officers testified about their subsequent investigation into the murder. The officers stated that they discovered a latent fingerprint on a glass in the house of prostitution that matched one of Vega-Lara's fingerprints. From there, police officers interviewed associates of Vega-Lara, including M.G. One officer explained that Morales became a suspect when M.G. confirmed that Vega-Lara was involved in Mesa-Ortiz's death and informed officers that Morales and Solorzano-O'Brien were also involved. When it came time for Vega-Lara to testify, Vega-Lara statedout of the presence of the jury and without the assistance of counselthat despite his use immunity, he would not testify at Morales's trial. [2] The State argued that it was entitled to call Vega-Lara to ask him certain questions. Morales argued that it was unfairly prejudicial for the State to call Vega-Lara solely for the purpose of having the jury see him, an alleged co-conspirator of the defendant, invoke a [F]ifth [A]mendment privilege or refuse to testify before this jury. Nevertheless, the court ruled that the State had the right to question Vega-Lara because he had been granted use immunity. The State then called Vega-Lara to testify and questioned him about the robbery and murder of Mesa-Ortiz. Vega-Lara did not give a substantive answer to any of the State's questions. For the most part, he responded to each question with the statement, I refuse to answer, but his first response was, I plead the fifth. Refuse to answer. Later, Vega-Lara simply responded, Plead the fifth, and the State responded, You have been granted immunity, sir. Vega-Lara then said, Okay. I refuse to answer. As Vega-Lara refused to answer questions, the State responded to Vega-Lara's refusal to answer by introducing questions posed to and answers given by Vega-Lara at his own trial. Morales repeatedly objected to the use of the questions and answers arguing that they included hearsay, but the district court overruled the objections and allowed the introduction of the questions and answers as prior inconsistent statements. More specifically, the State introduced into evidence prior statements regarding Vega-Lara's relationship with Morales and the events of March 13, 2006. In essence, a detailed description of Vega-Lara's testimony at his own trial was introduced. An example of the direct examination is as follows: State: Did youdid Angel Morales point the gun at Victor Mesa-Ortiz for the purpose of robbing him? Vega-Lara: Refuse to answer. State: Did you previously testify that he pointed the gun at Victor Mesa-Ortiz Vega-Lara: Refuse to answer. State: for the purpose of robbing him? Vega-Lara: Refuse to answer. State: Did Victor Mesa-Ortiz resist when Angel Morales pointed the gun at him and tried to rob him? Vega-Lara: Refuse to answer. State: At that point did you enter the did you previously tell the jury that Victor Mesa-Ortiz started struggling with Angel Morales over the gun? Vega-Lara: I refuse to answer. On cross-examination by Morales's counsel, Vega-Lara also refused to answer questions. Vega-Lara gave a substantive response to only one question, admitting that he testified at his own trial that he did not intend to kill Mesa-Ortiz. The district court instructed the jury that Vega-Lara's prior testimony was admitted only for the light it may cast on the truth of Mr. Vega-Lara's testimony at this trial and also told the jury, You must not consider the statement as evidence of the facts referred to in the statement. Through the testimony of M.G., the State introduced into evidence out-of-court statements of both Morales and Vega-Lara. M.G. testified that he had a conversation with Morales before the murder in which Morales declared he had plans to rob the house of prostitution. [3] M.G. also testified about a conversation he allegedly had with Vega-Lara after the murder. Before trial, the State conceded that the parts of Vega-Lara's statements to M.G. that mentioned Morales did not fall within the statement-against-interest exception to the hearsay rule. The State agreed to excise or redact the statement and advised M.G. not to reference Morales when recounting Vega-Lara's statements to the jury. Under this agreement, the district court admitted Vega-Lara's statements as statements against his penal interest. See Minn. R. Evid. 804(b)(3). M.G. was then allowed to testify that Vega-Lara told him that Vega-Lara, Solorzano-O'Brien, and another person went to the house to commit a robbery and that Vega-Lara had stated that another person was struggling with Mesa-Ortiz when he shot Mesa-Ortiz. Morales attacked M.G.'s story on cross-examination, pointing out that M.G. initially told the police that Morales had spoken to him two days after the murder, rather than before the murder. Morales pointed out the lack of evidence regarding Morales's presence at the house on the day of the murder, asserting that M.G.'s testimony was the only thing that linked Morales to the crime. Morales also alleged that Vega-Lara shot Mesa-Ortiz because of a disagreement he had with Mesa-Ortiz regarding whether he had to pay more for additional sex with C.M. Near the end of Morales's trial, the State moved the district court to admit a transcript of Vega-Lara's prior testimony and requested that the transcript be admitted as substantive evidence under Minn. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(A)prior inconsistent statements as nonhearsayor under Minn. R. Evid. 807the residual hearsay exception. The court denied that motion and did not admit the transcript. It is undisputed that the State violated the parties' substitution agreement in its closing argument when it used Morales or the defendant rather than another person more than once when describing M.G.'s testimony regarding Vega-Lara's statements. For example, the State said, Vega-Lara told M.G. that when the robbery began Victor resisted, and the defendant and Victor Mesa-Ortiz got into a struggle over the defendant's gun. [4] The jury acquitted Morales of first-degree murder, intentional second-degree murder, and second-degree murder during the commission of an assault. But the jury found Morales guilty of unintentional second-degree felony murder during an aggravated robbery. The district court convicted Morales of that offense and sentenced him to 150 months in prison.