Court Opinion

ID: 9691593
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 20:42:15.722153+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:23.126165
License: Public Domain

GILBERT, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. Our standard of review for this case requires that “evidentia-ry ⅜ * * rulings * * * will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.” State v. Grayson, 546 N.W.2d 731, 736 (Minn.1996) (quoting State v. Glaze, 452 N.W.2d 655, 660 (Minn.1990)). In this case there was no abuse of discretion.1 Further, as the majority states in its opinion, we have previously enunciated that “[a] defendant who claims that the trial court erred in admitting evidence bears the burden of showing the error and the resulting prejudice.” Id. (citing State v. Steinbuch, 514 N.W.2d 793, 799 (Minn.1994)). In the present case, I conclude that Shannon has not borne his burden of proof and would affirm the conviction for first-degree murder.
Our general rule of exclusion is that “[evidence of another crime, wrong or act is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity” with such crime or to show the defendant’s propensity to commit crime. Minn. R. Evid. 404(b); see also State v. Bolte, 530 N.W.2d 191,196 (Minn.1995). However, our case law has long established that so-called Spreigl evidence may be admitted if it is offered for a proper purpose, such as demonstrating a common scheme or plan by the defendant. See State v. Elli, 267 Minn. 185, 188, 125 N.W.2d 738, 740 (1964). In this case the evidence of the Webster incident was not admitted to show Shannon’s bad character, or to prove his propensity to commit crime. Rather, evidence of the Webster incident was offered to demonstrate the common scheme or plan of gang dominance and enforcement in this particular neighborhood of south Minneapolis.
The evidence offered at the pretrial conference and the subsequent in camera hearing tended to establish that both the murder of Eric Davis and the shooting of Brock Webster were shootings committed by members of the Bloods street gang in furtherance of the common scheme of gang domination and enforcement over a particular territory. Shannon admitted being a member of the Bloods gang, and the territory in which Davis was murdered was considered Bloods territory. He further admitted to carrying a .357 revolver for protection at the time of the Davis murder. Officer Gerlicher testified that Shannon surmised, under questioning, that if Davis had been shot in the manner described, it was probably because he was wearing blue-colored clothing, the color worn by the rival Bogus Boyz gang, in territory claimed by the Bloods street gang, which wears red colors. Shannon admitted to being present at the scene of the Davis murder, *587and to running away after the shooting began.
Similarly the Webster shooting, far from being an isolated and unrelated incident, was demonstrated by Officer Lindback’s testimony to be a robbery committed by members of the Bloods gang against Webster, a member of the rival Vice Lords gang, attempting to sell drugs in a Bloods neighborhood. Not only did Shannon again admit to being present at the scene of the crime and again claimed to have run away after the shooting began, he also told Officer Lindback that he anticipated getting a share of the marijuana taken from Webster after the robbery.
Further, there is statutory support for viewing a variety of criminal acts, not as isolated events, but as part of a common plan or scheme of criminal activity in furtherance of a criminal gang. In response to the pervasive and violent nature of gang-related crime, the legislature in 1991 established a separate category of crimes committed for the benefit of a gang. Act of June 3, 1991, ch. 279, § 30, 1991 Minn. Laws 1282, 1298-99, codified as amended at Minn.Stat. § 609.229 (1996). Subdivision 2 increases sentences for defendants convicted of committing certain enumerated crimes “for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal gang, with the intent to promote, further, or assist in criminal conduct by gang members.” Minn.Stat. § 609.229, subd. 2.
The majority reaches its conclusion by viewing these two incidents as separate and distinct events, one a robbery and attempted murder and the other murder. However, both crimes had striking similarities. They involved the repeatéd shootings of young, defenseless, African-American males at point blank range with the same caliber pistols. They occurred in an area of south Minneapolis claimed by the Bloods as their territory. The acts committed related to the Bloods’ effort to control their territory and to punish those who dared infringe upon that territory. I believe that the majority has substituted its own judgment for the judgment of the trial court, which held two hearings and took the matter under advisement before concluding that the Spreigl incident was admissible for the proper purpose of showing Shannon’s role in enforcing the Bloods’ dominance in the neighborhood where the crimes occurred.
I conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Shannon’s participation in the Webster incident was proven by clear and convincing evidence.2 The trial court, who heard the evidence, was in the best position to evaluate the credibility of the state’s evidence, the relevance of the evidence, whether the evidence was needed, and the evidence would not be used by the jury for an improper purpose. See State v. Cogshell, 538 N.W.2d 120, 124 (Minn.1995). Because Shannon has not met his burden of proof and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in this case, I would affirm.

. In particular, I note that the procedural safeguards adopted by this court in State v. Billstrom were carefully observed in this case. See 276 Minn. 174, 177-79, 149 N.W.2d 281, 283-85. The state gave timely notice of the evidence to be offered and stated the exception on which it relied, and the trial court judge gave proper cautionary instructions to the juiy. As an additional precaution, the trial court declined to rule on the admissibility of the Spreigl evidence until the conclusion of the state's case in chief and after an in camera hearing out of the presence of the jury.

. While it would be helpful for the appellate court on review if the court had made specific findings on the record, our case law does not require the court to do so and the court's failure to do so is not error.