Preview:

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A09-242 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Nicholas Vincent Super, Appellant. Filed April 20, 2010 Affirmed Hudson, Judge Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-CR-07-005364 Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, David C. Brown, Assistant County Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent) Melissa Sheridan, Special Assistant State Public Defender, Eagan, Minnesota (for appellant) Considered and decided by Hudson, Presiding Judge; Connolly, Judge; and Johnson, Judge. SYLLABUS Absent prosecutorial misconduct, the district courts refusal to order use immunity to secure a defense witnesss testimony, when the state has not requested such immunity, does not generally deprive a defendant of the constitutional right to present a complete defense.

OPINION HUDSON, Judge Appellant challenges his conviction of second-degree intentional murder following a court trial, arguing that: (1) the district court violated his constitutional right to present a complete defense by not granting use immunity to one of appellants witnesses or to continue appellants trial until the conclusion of the appeal of that witnesss conviction and (2) the circumstantial evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. The district court did not err by failing to order use immunity or to continue appellants trial because the states litigation tactics do not constitute prosecutorial misconduct and the record does not suggest that the exculpatory aspects of the witnesss expected testimony would have materially differed from her statement to police that was produced at trial. circumstantial evidence is sufficient to support appellants conviction, and we affirm. FACTS A Hennepin County grand jury indicted appellant Nicholas Vincent Super on one count of first-degree, premeditated murder in violation of Minn. Stat.

Download A09-242, State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Nicholas Vincent Super, Appellant..

Minnesota Law