Court Opinion

ID: 9691435
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 20:31:54.303188+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:19.665519
License: Public Domain

PAGE, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. I agree' with the court that the victim’s statement “[i]t was the Bloods” does not possess the requisite foundation for admissibility and, therefore, its admission was error. It is clear, from the record presented, that there is no evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that the victim in this case had any personal knowledge as to who shot him. I disagree, however, with the court’s conclusion that the trial court’s error was harmless. ,.
Most of the evidence implicating Alonzo Ferguson in Allen Wheatley, Jr.’s death was circumstantial and, at best, weak. Although circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict a criminal defendant,1 the issue here is not whether the evidence against Ferguson is sufficient to sustain his conviction, but whether his conviction was “surely unattributable” to the trial court’s error2 in admitting the victim’s highly prejudicial statement, “[i]t was the Bloods.”
The most damaging evidence against Ferguson came in testimony from Johnny Edwards, a police informant, who, more than 12 months after Allen Wheatley, Jr. was shot, offered to testify against Ferguson as part of a plea agreement related to crimes Edwards was charged with, but which had nothing to do with this case. Edwards testified that he saw Ferguson and another Bloods member prior to the murder, in the early morning on September 24, just as the sun was beginning to rise, and that Ferguson told him that he had an argument with Allen Wheatley, Jr. and planned to kill him. Edwards further testified that Ferguson was armed with a .45 caliber automatic weapon and that his companion had a .25. Finally, he testified that, later that same day, Ferguson admitted to him that he had shot Allen Wheatley, ‘ Jr.
The problem with Edwards’ testimony, beyond the obvious concerns about his motive, credibility, and veracity, is that it is uncorroborated and inconsistent with certain established facts. As such, serious questions arise as to his version of events. Allen Wheatley, Jr. was shot around 5:00 a.m., yet Edwards claims that it was just before sunrise (which occurred at about 7:02 a.m. on September 24, some two hours after the actual shooting) when Ferguson told him that he planned to do the shooting. Further, the weapons Edwards claims that Ferguson and his companion were carrying — .45 and .25 caliber handguns — could not have been involved in the shooting inasmuch as the bullet recovered from- Allen Wheatley, Jr.’s body came from either a ,380 or a 9-millimeter gun.
The only other evidence directly implicating Ferguson was the .testimony of Vincent Wheatley, who testified that he saw Ferguson, wearing a maroon or black-red flannel shirt, accompanied by an unknown individual at the side of the house just before the shooting. From this, and other evidence, the state theorized that Ferguson was the shooter. Yet, the inference to be drawn from this testimony is weakened by the fact that others testified that Ferguson was wearing a brown jacket when seen earlier in the evening and by the fact that when the police searched Ferguson’s house a few days after the shooting, they recovered a brown jacket, but no maroon or black-red flannel shirt was found.
Further, the inferences to be drawn from the remainder of the evidence against Ferguson, viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, do not lead unerringly to Ferguson’s guilt. At most, the evidence demonstrates that Ferguson was in a heated argument with Allen Wheatley, Jr. earlier in the morning over the “colors” he was wearing. However, from the record, it appears that that argument was no more heated than the one Allen Wheatley, Jr. had with his cousin, Prentice Wheatley, which flowed out of the *838argument with Ferguson.3 The 'state also places great importance on Ferguson’s involvement as a gang member. But the mere fact that Ferguson may have been a gang member does not, without more, lead, to the conclusion that Ferguson committed the shooting. While inferences from the fact that Ferguson was a gang member may in some limited way support the state’s theory of the case, which was that Ferguson shot Allen Wheatley, Jr. because he was a member of a rival gang, the inferences from that fact do not have much value without Allen Wheatley, Jr.’s statement, “[i]t was the Bloods.” .
Because the evidence against Ferguson was weak and because the statement “[i]t was the Bloods” was highly prejudicial, the trial court’s erroneous admission of the statement was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Simply put, it cannot be said with any certainty that Ferguson’s conviction was “surely unattributable” to the trial court’s error.
Therefore, I dissent.
GARDEBRING, Justice (dissenting).
I join in the dissent of Justice PAGE.

. State v. Bias, 419 N.W.2d 480, 484 (Minn. 1988).

. Juarez, 572 N.W.2d 286, 292 (Minn.1997) (citations omitted).

. It should be noted that Prentice Wheatley’s whereabouts were unaccounted for at the time of the shooting.