Preview:

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A10-1235

Ramsey County

Dietzen, J.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jabaris Curt Boldman, Appellant. ________________________ Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and John Choi, Ramsey County Attorney, Thomas R. Ragatz, Assistant Ramsey County Attorney, St. Paul, Minnesota, for respondent. David W. Merchant, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Jessica Merz Godes, Assistant State Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota, for appellant. ________________________ SYLLABUS 1. Pursuant to the State's concession, the evidence is not sufficient to support Filed: April 18, 2012 Office of Appellate Courts

appellant's first-degree felony murder conviction. Because the State's concession is reasonably supported in the record, we vacate the conviction. 2. The evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support a conviction for

second-degree intentional murder. Specifically, the evidence that appellant intended to kill the victim, which was largely circumstantial, was sufficient. 1

3.

Appellant failed to prove prejudice regarding the State's failure to produce

the transcript of a police interview of a defense witness because the State agreed not to use the transcript when the defense objected to the use of the transcript at trial. Thus, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Vacated and remanded. OPINION DIETZEN, Justice. Appellant Jabaris Curt Boldman was found guilty by a jury of first-degree felony murder and second-degree intentional murder for the shooting death of Vernon Cafle, which death occurred on January 18, 2009, in St. Paul, Minnesota. The district court entered judgment of conviction for first-degree felony murder and imposed a life sentence. On direct appeal, appellant argues that the evidence is not sufficient to support the convictions, that the state violated its discovery obligations, and therefore his convictions should be reversed. Because we conclude that the evidence was not

sufficient to support the first-degree felony murder conviction but was sufficient to support a second-degree murder conviction, and that the alleged discovery violation was harmless, we vacate appellant's conviction for first-degree felony murder and remand to the district court to enter a judgment of conviction and impose sentence on the seconddegree murder charge. On the evening of January 18, 2009, St. Paul police responded to a 911 call reporting a shooting in St. Paul at the residence of Vernon Cafle. On arrival, paramedics discovered Cafle's body on the porch of his home. Police searched Cafle's residence and 2

discovered loose marijuana on the kitchen floor near the door leading to the porch, and a loaded .357 revolver in the basement. The responding officers interviewed the witnesses at the police station. The bullets recovered from Cafle's body were consistent with a .22 caliber weapon. Despite a thorough search of the crime scene, no .22 caliber shell casings were recovered. The medical examiner conducted an autopsy, and concluded that Cafle died of two gunshot wounds; one bullet entered the back of Cafle's head, traveling down his neck and into his right chest cavity, and the other bullet entered his low back near his tailbone. Neither gunpowder burns nor soot were found near the wounds or on Cafle's clothing, indicating the gunshot took place between at least several inches and possibly several feet away from Cafle's body. Cafle had a blood alcohol concentration of .218, but there were no signs of drug use. When police arrested appellant, he stated: "Let's get this over with, I'm the guy you are after." Appellant later told police he was at his girlfriend's house when the victim was shot. Police testified that appellant had a "relatively fresh scratch on his right forearm" of less than half an inch and small bruises on his right elbow and left shin, but did not note any injuries to his hands. A complaint was filed charging appellant with one count of second-degree intentional murder in violation of Minn. Stat.

Download A10-1235, State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jabaris Curt Boldman, Appellant..p

Minnesota Law