State of Minnesota v. John NMN Miles
585 N.W.2d 368 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court has broad discretion to exclude expert testimony on the general reliability of eyewitness identification when it determines the testimony will not be helpful to the jury and when other procedural safeguards are in place to protect the defendant's right to a fair trial.
Facts:
- On July 17, 1996, John Miles reported to police that he was robbed at gunpoint by a man known as "Tyrone," and identified Tyrone's vehicle as a green Jeep Cherokee with a specific license plate.
- Miles later told his friend, Marcell Scott, that Tyrone had robbed him of a large quantity of cocaine and cash, and Miles subsequently began carrying two handguns while looking for Tyrone.
- On the evening of July 31, 1996, Tyrone Harrell drove his green Jeep Cherokee past a house where Miles was present with Scott and other friends.
- Immediately after Harrell passed, Miles went to the back alley with a gun and hid behind a garage.
- Harrell's Jeep crashed into a utility pole in the alley, and a man matching Miles's description shot at Harrell as he exited the vehicle.
- The shooter pursued Harrell up the alley, more shots were fired, and Harrell was found dead from a gunshot wound.
- Three neighbors (K.B., Candra Edwards, and Bart Becker) witnessed parts of the incident and later identified Miles from a photo lineup with varying degrees of certainty; Becker's identification was cross-racial.
- Shortly after the shooting, Miles met Scott and told him he had chased Harrell and "popped him a couple more times."
Procedural Posture:
- The defense for John Miles filed a pre-trial motion in the trial court to admit the expert testimony of Dr. Edith Green regarding the reliability of eyewitness identification.
- The trial court denied the defense's motion.
- Following jury selection, defense counsel moved for reconsideration of the motion to admit expert testimony.
- The trial court again denied the motion.
- At the conclusion of the trial, the jury convicted John Miles of first-degree murder.
- John Miles (as appellant) appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court abuse its discretion by excluding expert testimony on the general reliability of eyewitness identification, particularly concerning cross-racial identification?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stringer
No. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the expert testimony. A trial court may exclude expert testimony if it determines the testimony will not be helpful to the jury. Here, the subject of eyewitness reliability is within the common knowledge of a lay jury, and the court found that traditional trial safeguards—such as extensive voir dire, effective cross-examination, persuasive closing arguments, and proper jury instructions on evaluating eyewitness testimony—were sufficient to protect the defendant's rights. The court, citing State v. Helterbridle, held that requiring the admission of such expert testimony is not the only answer to the problem of unreliable identification. Furthermore, the eyewitness testimony was not the only evidence against Miles; the state also presented strong evidence of motive, a detailed account from an associate, and ballistic evidence consistent with a gun Miles was known to carry.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the high degree of deference appellate courts grant to trial courts on evidentiary rulings, particularly regarding the admission of expert testimony. It solidifies the precedent set in State v. Helterbridle, establishing that the potential for eyewitness error should be addressed through traditional adversarial processes like cross-examination and jury instructions, rather than mandating the admission of expert testimony. The ruling suggests that courts may view the general subject of witness credibility as falling within the jury's common-sense evaluation, even when presented with scientific evidence about counter-intuitive concepts like the unreliability of cross-racial identification. For future cases, this precedent places the burden on defendants to challenge eyewitness testimony through conventional trial methods rather than relying on expert witnesses to educate the jury.
Unlock the full brief for State of Minnesota v. John NMN Miles