Court Opinion

ID: 9688387
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 17:45:09.399743+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:37.950606
License: Public Domain

SCHUMACHER, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. Considering the overwhelming evidence of guilt, independent of the testimony of Newman, the refusal to give the requested jury instruction was within the sound discretion of the trial court. I would affirm.
At trial, the prosecution presented sufficient independent evidence establishing the guilt of Shoop. Newman and Shoop were seen together the night of the murder, including shortly after it occurred. There is evidence that Shoop and Newman discussed Hummel’s murder several times pri- or to Hummel’s death. Further, each of these discussions involved events similar to how Hummel actually died. There were boot prints near the scene of the crime similar to those Shoop owned. Shoop’s fingerprints and palm prints were found on the pickup truck used to dispose of Hum-mel’s body. Shoop’s shirt, similar to one he wore on the night of the murder, was found a few feet away from the murder weapon in a creek. Shoop and Newman fled from the Austin area when the investigation began. And finally, Rick Ferguson testified that when Newman stated that Shoop “did it,” Shoop nodded in affirmation.
To sustain a conviction, the independent, corroborating evidence may be circumstantial in nature. State v. Star, 248 Minn. 571, 576, 81 N.W.2d 94, 98 (1957). The evidence presented, independent of Newman’s testimony, was certainly more than sufficient.
As noted by the majority, the issuance of requested jury instructions lies in the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Daniels, 361 N.W.2d 819, 831 (Minn.1985). The trial court is in the best position to consider the necessity of any given instruction. In light of the considerable independent evidence of guilt presented to the *264jury, the trial court was within its discretion in refusing to give the instruction.
Although the trial court may have been on the safe side to give the cautionary instruction, nevertheless, the failure to give the instruction was not reversible error where ample corroboration existed. See Cole v. State, 289 Minn. 503, 183 N.W.2d 290 (1971), (the failure to give a cautionary instruction on corroboration was not reversible error where ample corroboration existed and where the jury instruction was not requested.)
It is true that the present case goes one step further than Cole, namely, that a cautionary instruction was requested and denied. Yet, it is clear from the record that defendant received a fair trial and was not denied any fundamental rights. See Cole, 183 N.W.2d at 292.
For the foregoing reasons, I would affirm the conviction.