Preview:

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A09-530 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Raymond Clyde Robideau, Appellant. Filed June 15, 2010 Affirmed Ross, Judge Anoka County District Court File No. 02-CR-08-1256 Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Robert M.A. Johnson, Anoka County Attorney, Robert D. Goodell, Assistant County Attorney, Anoka, Minnesota (for respondent) David W. Merchant, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Steven P. Russett, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant) Raymond Clyde Robideau, St. Cloud, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Considered and decided by Stauber, Presiding Judge; Stoneburner, Judge; and Ross, Judge. SYLLABUS 1. Particular cruelty based on a killer's failure to obtain aid for his victim is

not an aggravating factor supporting an upward sentencing departure for intentional murder.

2.

When a defendant kills a victim knowing that her child is present alone in

the home and will likely soon discover his mother's body, he commits the crime in the presence of the child such that a valid aggravating sentencing factor exists. OPINION ROSS, Judge Raymond Robideau appeals from his conviction of and sentence for second-degree intentional murder for stabbing his girlfriend to death. Robideau argues that the district court erred by allowing the state to impeach his testimony with an involuntary statement obtained in violation of his Miranda rights and by allowing the detective to offer his opinions about witness credibility. Robideau also argues that the district court

erroneously departed upward in sentencing him by relying on an improper aggravating factor. Robideau is not entitled to a new trial because we see no trial errors and because the overwhelming evidence of his guilt renders the alleged errors inconsequential. And although the district court based the enhanced sentence on an invalid aggravating factor, we affirm Robideau's sentence because the district court also relied on a valid factor and would have imposed the same sentence absent its reliance on the invalid factor. We affirm. FACTS Raymond Robideau lived in East Bethel with his girlfriend, Sharon Chouinard, and her 13-year-old son, D.C. The couple argued on January 25, 2008, and deemed the relationship over. Chouinard informed her son that they would move to a new home without Robideau. Sometime after 9:00 p.m., one of Chouinard's friends called her and 2

perceived that Chouinard was very worked up, very upset about the move and was yelling at Robideau for lying. Robideau sent a text message to his father stating, Its official we ru [sic] done. Chouinard telephoned another friend around 10:00 p.m. and said that Robideau was being an asshole and that they were having a big fight. Her friend overheard Robideau call Chouinard a bitch in an agitated voice. Just before midnight, Chouinard talked by telephone with the mother of Robideau's son. She heard Robideau in the background say, You're lying. D.C. came home shortly after midnight. Chouinard was in the living room and Robideau was in the bedroom. D.C. began watching a movie with Chouinard, who soon fell asleep. Robideau came out of the bedroom momentarily at around 12:40 a.m. Ten minutes later D.C. went to his basement bedroom. Just before going to bed, D.C. heard his mom say, Stop it. He heard nothing more. D.C. woke up at about 11 a.m. but remained downstairs until his grandmother called the house around noon. She was concerned that she had not heard from

Chouinard. D.C. knocked on his mother's bedroom door but got no response. D.C. forced open the locked door and found Chouinard's bloody body on the floor. He dialed for emergency help for his mother and told the operator that he thought Robideau did something to her. Chouinard had been stabbed twice in the neck and had a deep cut on her right thumb. Blood was on the bed and floor, and traces of blood were in other areas of the house.

3

Police soon discovered that Robideau had been injured in an explosion at a house in Princeton owned by Robideau's friends J.S. and M.M. J.S. and M.M. had returned to their house just as it exploded and Robideau came running out of a utility room on fire. M.M. threw Robideau to the ground and smothered the fire. Robideau was bleeding from a wide cut across his wrist. Robideau told M.M., I killed Sharon and I want to kill myself. The gas line to the furnace had been disconnected and a lighter lay at the base of the furnace. A bloody knife on the kitchen counter contained both Robideau's and Chouinard's DNA. A bloody paring knife found downstairs contained only Robideau's DNA. A bottle of drain cleaner and an empty bottle of Jack Daniels was in the area of the basement where Robideau sometimes slept. The liquor bottle had been about threequarters full before Robideau arrived that day. Robideau was hospitalized and treated for burns and two cuts across his left wrist and one across his right wrist. Detective Dan Douglas questioned Robideau at the hospital two days later. The detective read Robideau his Miranda rights and began the questioning after Robideau indicated that he wanted to talk. The detective ended the questioning after only five minutes. Detective Douglas returned eight hours later. He again read Robideau his Miranda rights, but Robideau did not acknowledge that he understood them. The

detective declared that Chouinard was dead and that police believed that Robideau had stabbed her. Robideau claimed that he did not know she was dead, denied killing her or trying to kill himself, and stated that he did not know how he ended up in the hospital. Robideau continued to deny involvement for twenty minutes until he eventually requested a lawyer and the detective ended the interview. 4

The state charged Robideau with first- and second-degree murder and transferred him to the Anoka County jail, where he confessed to two inmates, V.W. and J.B., that he had killed Chouinard. V.W. and J.B. testified at Robideau's trial. According to V.W., Robideau said that he and Chouinard got into a shoving match and he grabbed a knife from the nightstand. Chouinard cut her hand when she tried to grab the knife. Robideau grabbed her, put her on the bed, and stabbed her twice in the neck. He then cut his own wrists to make it appear as if she had cut him. According to J.B., Robideau said that he stabbed Chouinard in the neck while she was sleeping and she cut her thumb when she woke up and tried to grab the knife. Robideau then cut his wrists in order to be able to later claim self-defense. The medical examiner testified that Chouinard died between midnight and 6:00 a.m. from the two knife wounds to her neck. She characterized the cut on Chouinard's thumb as a defensive-type wound, but there were no other injuries to her body indicating that a struggle had occurred. The examiner also testified that the cuts on Robideau's wrists were typical suicidal-type wounds and were self-inflicted. Law enforcement witnesses testified that bloody footprints consistent with the pattern on Robideau's shoes were found in Chouinard's bedroom. Blood found on the kitchen floor, on a liquor bottle in the kitchen, and on Chouinard's purse matched Robideau's DNA profile. The bed sheet was heavily stained with blood, which matched both Robideau's and Chouinard's DNA profiles. Robideau testified in his own defense and offered the following explanation for Chouinard's death: He and Chouinard had been drinking and got into a heated argument. 5

Chouinard had previously assaulted him after she drank alcohol.

Robideau told

Chouinard we're done and you're not moving into that house. Robideau went to bed. He felt something hit his arm and looked up and saw Chouinard standing next to the bed. She told him that he was not going to leave her and her son, and she swung her arm. Robideau reached up and got cut. He grabbed her arms, pulled her on top of himself, rolled her over, and pushed her arm into her chest, and they both fell to the floor. Robideau then blacked out because he saw blood. He did not inflict the wounds to Chouinard's neck but assumed it happened when he fell to the floor on top of her. Robideau's account continued: When he regained consciousness, he saw a knife sticking out of Chouinard's neck. He went into shock. He smoked a cigarette. He drank some rum. He searched for money. Confused about what to do, he decided to go to Princeton for help. On the way out of the house, he threw the knife into a snow bank next to the front door. At the Princeton house, he attempted to relieve his pain by drinking Jack Daniels, sniffing Drano, and disconnecting the natural gas line and inhaling the gas. Robideau next remembered telling J.S. and M.M. that Chouinard had tried to kill him, and the next thing he remembered, he was waking up in the hospital. The jury found Robideau not guilty of first-degree murder but guilty of intentional second-degree murder. The state moved for an upward sentencing departure, and

Robideau waived his right to a jury determination on the issue of whether aggravating sentencing factors existed. The district court found that aggravating factors justified an upward departure from the sentencing guidelines and sentenced Robideau to 460 months'

6

imprisonment, 93 months beyond his presumptive sentence range. Robideau appeals, requesting a new trial or, alternatively, a reduced sentence. ISSUES I. Did the district court commit reversible error by allowing the state to impeach Robideau with statements he made to a police detective while in the hospital? Was Robideau denied a fair trial when a police detective testified to his opinion that trial witnesses had not colluded with each other and that Robideau was untruthful and merely feigning confusion when he made a statement to the detective? Did the district court rely on invalid aggravating factors when it departed upward and sentenced Robideau 93 months longer than the presumptive sentence range? ANALYSIS I Robideau challenges the district court's admission of his second-interview statements at the hospital, which he contends were obtained in violation of his Miranda rights and were involuntary. The state concedes that the statements were taken in

II.

III.

violation of Robideau's Miranda rights but argues that because they were voluntarily made, the state could introduce them to impeach Robideau's testimony. The state is correct. Even statements obtained in violation of a defendant's constitutional right to counsel may be used to impeach the defendant's credibility as long as the defendant voluntarily provided the statements. Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 224

Download A09-530, State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Raymond Clyde Robideau, Appellant..

Minnesota Law