Court Opinion

ID: 9855892
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:33:36.329534+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:37:16.417655
License: Public Domain

PAGE, Justice
(concurring in part, dissenting in part).
I agree with the court’s conclusion that the trial court erred when it failed to make findings on the record supporting its decision requiring Shoen to wear leg restraints. I also agree with the court’s conclusion that that decision was not objectively justified. But I do not agree with the court’s remand to the trial court for a Schwartz hearing. My view of the record presented leads me to the conclusion that Shoen’s conviction was “surely unattributable” to the trial court’s error and was therefore harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.1
Shoen admitted to killing his wife. As a result, the only real issue for the jury to decide was whether Shoen was guilty of first-degree murder, second-degree murder, or first-degree manslaughter. When reviewing a conviction for harmless error, we look to the totality of circumstances leading to the conviction.2 One factor we consider is the nature of the evidence presented at trial.
While not the only factor, it is an important one.3 Here, the evidence of premeditation and intent necessary to convict Shoen of first-degree murder is direct, compelling, and overwhelming. While Shoen argues that wearing the restraint may have made it appear that he was not a peaceful man and needed to be restrained for the jurors’ safety and that this could have made the difference *719between a verdict of first-degree murder and one of first-degree manslaughter, that argument is strained at best.' First, no less than 10 character witnesses testified on Shoen’s behalf that he had a peaceful and nonviolent character. Thus, to the extent that the jurors may have been inclined to infer from the restraint that Shoen was not peaceful or that he was being restrained for their safety, that inference was counterbalánced. Second, and more important, the evidence in the record establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that Shoen was guilty of the crime for which he was convicted and that it is highly unlikely that the leg restraint played any role in that conviction. Beyond his admission that he killed his wife, the jury heard a tape of Shoen telling the police that killing his wife was “Cjjust like taking care of a cow, putting it out of their [sic] misery,” and acknowledging that he “had a pretty good idea” that hitting her over the head would kill her. Shoen admitted on cross-examination that he thought about killing, his wife and that he presumed she was still alive both before he went outside to find a pipe to bludgeon her with, as well as when he began hitting her with the pipe. The jury also heard testimony about his wife’s injuries which demonstrated that Shoen hit her with the pipe at least six times, in addition to strangling her. Finally, the jury heard Shoen testify that, after killing his wife, he took the time to go out and feed his livestock before calling the police and that he initially lied to the police about killing her.
The totality of the circumstances leads to the inescapable conclusion that the trial court’s error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and that no Schwartz hearing is required.

. State v. Juarez, 572 N.W.2d 286, 292 (Minn. 1997).

. State' v. Forcier, 420 N.W.2d 884, 886-87 (Minn.1988).

.Juarez, 572 N.W.2d at 292.