State of Minnesota, Respondent v. Lennell Maurice Martin, Appellant (Minnesota 2005)

Summary

The court held that the victim’s statement identifying the perpetrators was admissible as a dying declaration and that admitting it did not violate the Confrontation Clause. The court also held that the unexplained communications between the trial judge and deliberating jury required a remand to reconstruct the record, while rejecting most of the defendant’s pro se claims and preserving his fact-dependent ineffective-assistance claims for possible postconviction review.

Holding

Admissibility of the victim’s identification as a dying declaration. The victim’s statement identifying the perpetrators was admissible under the dying-declaration exception because the circumstances showed that he had a settled expectation that death was imminent.

Confrontation Clause treatment of the dying declaration. Admission of a dying declaration does not violate the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation because the dying-declaration exception existed at common law when the Constitution was adopted and was not repudiated by the Sixth Amendment.

Unrecorded communications between the trial judge and deliberating jury. Because the record did not reveal whether the four communications concerned housekeeping matters or substantive matters, the court could not determine whether Martin’s right to be present was violated and remanded for the trial court to create a record of the communications.

Ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The ineffective-assistance claims could not be resolved on the existing trial record because the reasons for counsel’s decisions not to retain an investigator or DNA expert were unknown; Martin could pursue those claims in a postconviction proceeding without procedural bar if he produced additional supporting evidence.

State of Minnesota, Respondent v. Lennell Maurice Martin, Appellant

Summary

Holding

Cited authorities

Cited by