Preview:

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A07-144

Freeborn County

Gildea, J. Took no part, Dietzen, J.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Robert M. Hughes, Appellant. Filed: May 22, 2008 Office of Appellate Courts

SYLLABUS 1. The evidence of premeditation was sufficient to support appellants

conviction for first-degree murder. 2. Appellant failed to demonstrate that the district court erred in its

instructions to the jury. Affirmed. Heard, considered, and decided by the court en banc. OPINION GILDEA, Justice. Following a jury trial in Freeborn County District Court, appellant Robert Michael Hughes was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and second-degree intentional 1

murder for the shooting death of his wife, Tammy Hughes. Appellant filed a direct appeal to this court, arguing that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to prove the element of premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the district courts jury instructions regarding first-degree premeditated murder and second-degree intentional murder constituted plain error that entitles him to a new trial. Appellant also presents additional arguments in a pro se supplemental brief. We affirm. The evidence at trial showed that appellant and Tammy Hughes married in 1996 and that they had two children. The family lived in Albert Lea, Minnesota. At trial, the State presented evidence showing that the couples marriage had deteriorated in the weeks preceding Tammys death. As a result, Tammy separated from appellant on May 20, 2005, and on May 23, she contacted an attorney to begin dissolution proceedings. The evidence showed that appellant was distraught over Tammys decision to leave. On May 24, the day before the shooting, appellant lunched with his former employer, who described appellant as "very distraught," crying, hunched over, and mumbling. During their lunch, appellant said that he and Tammy had discussed their children and marriage that day, and that "he was very concerned that she was going to take the kids away from him." Appellant also spoke for 2-and-a-half hours with a childhood friend that same day. During this conversation, appellant became so upset that the friend asked if he was having thoughts of suicide. That night, appellant spoke to Tammys mother and said that "he wanted to know what he could do" to get Tammy back; Tammys mother told appellant that the relationship was over.

2

The next day, May 25, Tammy met with her attorney at 8 a.m. She indicated during their conversation that she wanted custody of the couples two young children who, at the time, were staying in the family home with appellant. She informed her attorney that she planned to obtain paperwork and information from appellant over the noon lunch hour and gauge his reaction regarding the custody situation. Tammy left the meeting with her attorney and went to work. Her coworkers reported that she was "in a pretty good mood" when she arrived at the office. The staff ordered pizza to be delivered for lunch between 12:15 and 12:30 p.m. that day, and a coworker tried to persuade Tammy to stay for it. But after phoning appellant, Tammy told her coworker, "I have to go right now, * * * hes in a giving mood and I dont want to agitate him, and he was very adamant, he said you have to come right now, right now, Im going to be busy at one oclock." Tammy left the office at 11:45 a.m. The State offered testimony from two of the Hugheses neighbors that they heard shots fired around noon on May 25. J.D., the next-door neighbor, testified that two shots were fired within 30 seconds to 1 minute of each other. J.D. said that 5 minutes after the second shot, she heard the tires squealing on appellants van, and looked out her window to see appellant driving away from the house. K.K., who lived across the street and knew that the couple was having marital problems, testified that the shots were probably fired within a 5-minute span. In response to the noise, K.K. looked out her window and saw appellant "running out of his house." She saw him jump in his van, back up out of the driveway, almost hit a car in the street, and then tear off. K.K. also saw Tammys van parked on the street. She phoned the police when Tammy failed to come out of the 3

house. K.K. testified that 10 to 15 minutes after appellant left, he "just pulled in the driveway like nothing was wrong" and "unlocked the front door and just walked in." Albert Lea police officers arrived at the Hughes home shortly after noon in response to K.K.s call. They entered through the front door and went into the living room, where they found Tammys body on the floor. She had suffered two shotgun wounds, and was dead when police arrived. Police found a spent shotgun cartridge casing located near Tammys right leg and another near the entry to the kitchen. A 12gauge pump shotgun was propped against the kitchen wall. Police discovered appellant in the backyard near a fire pit, where a fire had just started to burn. He was holding a torch attached to a propane tank, and a gas can was nearby. Appellant was crying and "wailing loudly" when officers apprehended him, but he was cooperative during the arrest. Because of his behavior, police had appellant taken to the local hospital for examination. Appellant cried and sobbed during the drive to the hospital. Appellants emergency room nurse described him as oriented and cooperative during his examination. He was moaning with his eyes closed and making facial

grimaces, but did not cry. While at the hospital, appellant said to a detective "that he was sorry he screwed up." His nurse confirmed that appellant said, "Im sorry, I messed up, Im sorry," and that he volunteered this comment without being asked to do anything or answer any questions. Medical personnel found nothing physically wrong with appellant. Police observed no blood on his hands, arms, or clothes at the hospital, and no bloody clothes were found at the house. 4

Dr. Kelly Mills, who performed the autopsy on Tammys body, explained at trial that Tammy was shot twice and that she sustained three different injuries as a result. Tammy was shot first in the back, through her left shoulder area. The second shot came from the front and entered Tammys body through her left breast. Dr. Mills testified that the first shot to Tammys back was the fatal shot, and that it would have taken between 1 to 2 and 10 to 20 minutes for Tammy to die after that shot. Between the first and second shots, Tammy would have made raspy or "gurgling respiratory sounds" as she tried to breathe and her blood mixed with the air. Based on the nature of the second injury, Dr. Mills said that Tammy was alive at the time of the second shot. The second shot sped her death and Tammy either died on her back or was turned over onto her back shortly after death. The State also presented forensic evidence. Forensic scientist and firearms

examiner Stephanie Eckerman testified that the muzzle of the shotgun was 6 to 12 feet away when Tammy was shot in the back, and that the muzzle of the shotgun was 1 foot to 2 feet away from Tammy when she was shot in the left breast. Bureau of Criminal Apprehension forensic scientist Glenn Langenburg analyzed blood spatter in the living room of the Hughes house. He testified that Tammy was kneeling or crouching when she was shot and that her back was toward the kitchen and her face toward the cabinets along the wall of the living room. Finally, regarding forensics, Eckerman confirmed that the two shells that were found on the floor of the Hughes home--one in the living room and one in the kitchen--were fired by the shotgun police found propped up against the wall in the kitchen. 5

The State presented evidence that appellant purchased the 12-gauge shotgun on January 31, 2004, and that he typically stored it in the basement of the home. A neighbor and friend of appellants testified that he was in the Hughes home "[a] thousand" times during the 5 years that he lived across the street from them. He was with appellant when he bought the shotgun, and said that the shotgun was upstairs for a week or so after appellant first purchased it; after that he only saw the shotgun upstairs when the two men were going out shooting.1 The jury found appellant guilty of first-degree premeditated murder and seconddegree intentional murder. The district court convicted appellant of first-degree murder and sentenced him to life in prison. This direct appeal followed. I. We turn first to appellants argument that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to prove the element of premeditation. When the question is the sufficiency of evidence, "we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and will assume that the jury believed the States witnesses and disbelieved contrary evidence." State v. Moore, 481 N.W.2d 355, 360 (Minn. 1992). The issue on appeal is whether the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the jury to reasonably conclude that appellant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of firstdegree premeditated murder. The jury is in the best position to weigh the credibility of
1

A detective found an empty gun case and many boxes of shotgun shells behind some clothing in the corner of the closet attached to the downstairs bedroom. The gun case belonged to the shotgun used to kill Tammy. No weapons or shells were found elsewhere in the house. 6

the evidence and thus determine which witnesses to believe and how much weight to give their testimony. Id. The jury found appellant guilty of premeditating the murder of his wife. Minnesota Statutes

Download A07-144, State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Robert M. Hughes, Appellant..pdf

Minnesota Law