State v. Swanson
707 N.W.2d 645, 2006 Minn. LEXIS 6, 2006 WL 45255 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A prosecutor commits misconduct by using a defendant’s exercise of the constitutional right of confrontation to impeach the defendant's credibility by arguing they tailored their testimony, unless there is specific evidence, beyond the defendant's presence at trial, that such tailoring occurred.
Facts:
- Clinton Swanson, his girlfriend Karol House, and his friend Elijah Combs went to the home of Robert Schultz, who was there with Candice Hansen.
- Neither Hansen nor Schultz had previously met Swanson or Combs.
- Hansen heard a 'popping noise' and saw Swanson point a handgun at Schultz and then shoot him.
- As Schultz ran wounded into his bedroom, Combs tackled Hansen while he and House tied her up with electrical cords.
- Swanson stepped on Hansen while pursuing Schultz into the bedroom.
- House testified that Swanson then stabbed Schultz.
- Swanson and House searched the residence for drugs and money before leaving.
- After the three left, Hansen freed herself, discovered Schultz was dead, and called for help.
Procedural Posture:
- Clinton Swanson was charged with murder, kidnapping, and false imprisonment in a Minnesota district court (trial court).
- Prior to trial, the court denied Swanson's motion in limine to prevent the prosecution from using his five prior felony convictions for impeachment.
- The court also denied a defense motion to prohibit the prosecution from commenting on Swanson's presence at trial before testifying.
- A jury convicted Swanson of first-degree felony murder, second-degree murder, kidnapping, and false imprisonment.
- The trial court sentenced Swanson to life imprisonment for murder with a consecutive 48-month term for the kidnapping conviction.
- Swanson appealed his conviction and sentence directly to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
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 a prosecutor commit reversible error by arguing, without specific evidence, that a defendant tailored his testimony to conform to the state's evidence simply because the defendant exercised his constitutional right to be present throughout the trial and hear all other testimony?
Opinions:
Majority - Anderson, G. Barry, Justice
Yes, it is an error for a prosecutor to make such an argument, but the error was harmless in this case. The court establishes that while not federally required, the better rule in Minnesota is that the prosecution cannot use a defendant’s exercise of his right of confrontation to impeach the credibility of his testimony without specific evidence that the defendant actually tailored his testimony. The state's comments implied that all defendants are less believable simply for exercising their constitutional right to be present, which is not in itself evidence of guilt. However, the court found this error to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence against Swanson—including eyewitness testimony from Hansen and House and DNA evidence—was so strong that the verdict was 'surely unattributable to the error.' The court also held that a witness who is alleged to have committed the crime instead of the defendant is not an accomplice, a separate conviction for kidnapping a different victim does not exaggerate the criminality of the defendant's conduct, and a defendant does not waive their right to appeal the admission of prior convictions by introducing them first on direct examination after a motion to exclude is denied.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a new, defendant-protective rule in Minnesota that goes beyond the federal standard set in Portuondo v. Agard. It prevents the state from turning a defendant's constitutional right to be present at trial into a basis for attacking their credibility. While the misconduct in this specific case was deemed harmless error due to overwhelming evidence of guilt, the ruling sets a clear precedent limiting prosecutorial arguments in future cases. This enhances the fairness of trials for defendants who choose to testify by ensuring their exercise of a fundamental right is not used against them without a specific evidentiary basis.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Swanson