Preview:

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A09-0390 A10-1604

Washington County State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Nicole Marie Beecroft, Appellant (A09-0390), and Nicole Marie Beecroft, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent (A10-1604).

Anderson, Paul H., J. Concurring, Anderson, G. Barry, J. Dissenting, Gildea, C.J., Dietzen J. Dissenting, Stras, J. Filed: May 23, 2012 Office of Appellate Courts

________________________ Lori Swanson, Minnesota Attorney General, Kimberly R. Parker, Assistant Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota; and Peter Orput, Washington County Attorney, Stillwater, Minnesota, for respondent. John M. Stuart, Minnesota State Public Defender, Sara L. Martin, Assistant State Public Defender, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for appellant. Julie Ann Jonas, Innocence Project of Minnesota, Saint Paul, Minnesota; and 1

David F. Herr, Maslon Edelman Borman & Brand, LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for Amicus Curiae Innocence Project of Minnesota. ________________________ SYLLABUS The conduct of a private government contractor was state action for purposes of an alleged constitutional violation when that contractor served part-time as a county official and nearly all of the alleged misconduct occurred in the contractor's capacity as a county official. The harmful conduct of certain third-party state actors did not in and of itself warrant a new trial because even though the state actors' conduct violated the defendant's due process right to present a complete defense by substantially interfering with the defendant's potential witnesses, the interference did not affect the defendant's substantial rights given the strength of the State's case and the defendant's failure to mitigate the harm caused by her witnesses' unavailability. A third-party state actor's interference with the defendant's consulting expert does not warrant a new trial under this court's plain error standard of review because the defendant did not present evidence of specific harm that she suffered as a result of her consulting expert's decision to stop consulting with her during her trial. This court will exercise its supervisory powers and reverse a defendant's conviction in the interests of justice when the conduct of certain third-party state actors risked undermining the defendant's constitutional rights, contravened clear legislative intent, and interfered with the statutorily-mandated independence of medical examiners.

2

The district court did not err when it admitted the out-of-court statement made by a defendant who was 17 years and 9 months of age at the time of the statement was made because the defendant received an adequate Miranda warning given the defendant's age, the defendant's mother was present when the Miranda warning was given, the police informed the defendant about the serious nature of the potential adult-court charges the defendant faced, and because under the totality of the circumstances, the defendant waived her Miranda rights. Reversed and remanded. OPINION ANDERSON, Paul H., Justice. Nicole Marie Beecroft was found guilty of first-degree premeditated murder under Minn. Stat.

Download A09-390, A10-1604, State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Nicole Marie Beecroft, Ap

Minnesota Law