State v. Hayes
826 NW 2d 799 (2013)
Rule of Law:
Under Minnesota law, the offense of a drive-by shooting requires the discharge of a firearm from a motor vehicle at or toward another motor vehicle or a building; firing at a person who is an occupant of the same motor vehicle does not satisfy the elements of the crime.
Facts:
- Michael Funches, Jr. was driving a car with Christopher James Hayes in the front passenger seat.
- They picked up Christopher DeRonde, who sat in the back seat, to conduct a marijuana transaction.
- Hayes became dissatisfied with the quality of the marijuana and refused to pay for it.
- Hayes then locked the car doors, pulled out a gun, and pointed it at DeRonde.
- As DeRonde managed to open the rear door and began to exit the vehicle, Hayes shot him from inside the car.
- DeRonde ran a short distance before collapsing on the sidewalk and dying from the single gunshot wound.
- An autopsy revealed the fatal shot was fired from a distance of no more than three or four feet.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Minnesota charged Christopher James Hayes with second-degree intentional murder.
- A grand jury indicted Hayes on first-degree premeditated murder and first-degree felony murder while committing a drive-by shooting.
- Following a trial in district court, a jury found Hayes not guilty of first-degree premeditated murder.
- The jury found Hayes guilty of first-degree felony murder and second-degree intentional murder.
- The district court (the trial court) entered a judgment of conviction on the first-degree felony murder count and sentenced Hayes to life in prison.
- Hayes, as the appellant, appealed his first-degree felony murder conviction to the Minnesota Supreme Court, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does shooting a person who is an occupant of the same motor vehicle as the shooter constitute the offense of a 'drive-by shooting' under Minn. Stat. § 609.66, subd. 1e(a), which requires discharging a firearm 'at or toward another motor vehicle or a building'?
Opinions:
Majority - Stras, Justice.
No. The evidence was insufficient to prove that Hayes committed a drive-by shooting. The drive-by shooting statute, Minn. Stat. § 609.66, subd. 1e, is ambiguous. Subdivision 1e(a) defines the offense as recklessly discharging a firearm from a vehicle 'at or toward another motor vehicle or a building.' Subdivision 1e(b), which mentions firing at a person, does not create a separate, aggravated offense but rather functions as a sentence enhancement for the crime defined in 1e(a). Therefore, to commit a drive-by shooting, the State must prove the defendant fired at one of the two specified external targets: another vehicle or a building. Here, the evidence established only that Hayes shot DeRonde, who was an occupant of the same vehicle. Because the State failed to prove an essential element of the predicate felony (drive-by shooting), the first-degree felony murder conviction cannot stand.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the application of Minnesota's drive-by shooting statute, clarifying that it does not cover shootings that occur entirely within a single vehicle. The court's statutory interpretation establishes a strict 'external target' requirement, forcing prosecutors to prove that a defendant fired at another vehicle or a building to secure a conviction under this law. The ruling creates a potential legislative issue, as the statute, as interpreted, does not criminalize the act of shooting a fellow passenger as a 'drive-by,' even though such conduct aligns with the common understanding of the term. Future cases involving similar facts will have to be prosecuted under different murder statutes, without the predicate felony of a drive-by shooting.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: State v. Hayes (2013)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"