Transcription
Good morning. [Applause]
Uh, is council ready for the jury?
Okay, thank you, deputy. Good morning, jury members, please be seated.
Members of the jury, I am now going to give you the instructions of law that you need to apply in arriving at your verdict. You don't need to take notes unless you want to, because each of you will be getting a copy of the instructions.
It is your duty to decide the questions of fact in this case. It's my duty to give you the rules of law you must apply in arriving at your verdict. You must follow and apply the rules of law as I give them to you, even if you believe the law is or should be different. Deciding questions of fact is your exclusive responsibility. In doing so, you must consider all the evidence you have heard and seen in this trial, and you must disregard anything you may have heard or seen elsewhere about this case.
I have not, by these instructions nor by any ruling or expression during the trial, intended to indicate my opinion regarding the facts or the outcome of this case. If I have said or done anything that would seem to indicate such an opinion, you are to disregard it in your determination of the facts.
You are not to consider the possible penalties; that consideration is a responsibility of the court exclusively. Your only duty is to determine whether or not the guilt of the defendant has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, without reference to any possible penalty which may accrue.
You must consider these instructions as a whole and regard each instruction in light of all the others. The order in which the instructions are given is of no significance; you are free to consider the issues in any order you wish.
The defendant is presumed innocent of the charge made. This presumption remains with the defendant unless and until the defendant has proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That the defendant has been brought before the court by the ordinary processes of the law and is on trial should not be considered by you in any way as suggesting guilt.
The burden of proving guilt is on the state; the defendant does not have to prove innocence. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is such proof as ordinarily prudent men and women would act upon in their most important affairs. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense; it does not mean a fanciful or capricious doubt, nor does it mean beyond all possibility of doubt.
A fact may be proven by either direct or circumstantial evidence, or by both. The law does not prefer one form of evidence over the other. A fact is proven by direct evidence when, for example, it is proven by witnesses who testify to what they saw, heard, or experienced, or by physical evidence of the fact itself.
A fact is proven by circumstantial evidence when its existence can be reasonably inferred from other facts proven in the case.
Attorneys are officers of the court. It is their duty to make objections they think proper and to argue their client's cause. However, the arguments or the remarks of an attorney are not evidence. If the attorneys or I have made or should make any statement as to what the evidence is which differs from your recollection of the evidence, you should disregard the statement and rely solely on your own memory.
If an attorney's argument contains any statement of law that differs from the law I give you, disregard the statement. You are the sole judges of whether a witness is to be believed and of the weight to be given a witness's testimony. There are no hard and fast rules to guide you in this respect in determining believability and weight of testimony.
You may take into consideration the witness's interest or lack of interest in the outcome of the case, relationship to the parties, ability and opportunity to know, remember and relate the facts, manner, age, and experience, frankness and sincerity or lack thereof, and reasonableness or unreasonableness of the testimony in the light of all the other evidence in the case, any impeachment of the witness's testimony, and any other factors that bear on believability and weight.
You should rely, in the last analysis, upon your own experience, good judgment, and common sense. A witness who has special training, education, or experience in a particular science, occupation, or calling is allowed to express an opinion as to certain facts and determine the believability and weight to be given such opinion evidence.
You may consider the education, training, experience, knowledge, and ability of the witness, the reasons given for the opinion, the sources of the information, and factors already given you for evaluating the testimony of any witness. Such opinion evidence is entitled to neither more nor less consideration by you than any other evidence.
In determining the believability and weight to be given to the testimony of a witness, you may consider evidence of a statement by or conduct of the witness on some prior occasion that is inconsistent with present testimony. Evidence of any prior inconsistent statement or conduct should be considered only to test the believability and weight of the witness's testimony.
In the case of the defendant, however, evidence of any statement the defendant may have made may be considered by you for all purposes in this case. You have heard evidence as to the general character and character for honesty of the defendant. You should consider such evidence with all the other evidence in the case in determining whether or not the prosecution has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
During this trial, I have ruled on objections to certain exhibits and testimony. You must not consider or concern yourself with the reasons for these rulings, since they are controlled by rules of evidence. By admitting into evidence testimony and exhibits as to which the objection was made, I did not intend to indicate the weight to be given such testimony and evidence.
You are not to speculate as to possible answers to questions I did not require to be answered. You are to disregard all evidence and statements of attorneys that I have ordered stricken or have told you to disregard.
During the testimony of some witnesses, the parties introduced demonstrative exhibits in the form of charts and summaries. This information was presented to assist you as an aid in your understanding of the witnesses' testimony and to help explain the facts disclosed by the records, other documents, testimony, and other evidence that was received during the trial.
If any chart or summary is not consistent with the facts or figures shown by the evidence in this case, as you may find them, you should disregard the chart or summary and determine the facts from the underlying evidence.
Brooklyn Center police department policies are not criminal statutes. An alleged violation of a policy is not a crime. In this case, the defendant has been charged with two offenses. You should consider each offense and the evidence pertaining to it separately and in any order you wish. The fact that you may find the defendant guilty or not guilty as to one of the charged offenses should not control your verdict as to any other offense.
If I do not define a word or phrase that is used in these instructions, you should apply the common ordinary meaning of that word or phrase.
"Causing the death" or "caused the death" means that the defendant's acts or act were a substantial causal factor in causing the death of Dante Wright. The defendant is criminally liable for all the consequences of her actions that occur in the ordinary and natural course of events, including those consequences brought about by one or more intervening causes if such intervening causes were a natural result of the defendant's acts.
The fact that other causes contribute to the death does not relieve the defendant of criminal liability; however, the defendant is not criminally liable if the superseding cause caused the death. A superseding cause is the cause that comes after the defendant's acts, alters the natural sequence of events, and is the sole cause of a result that would not have otherwise occurred.
"Great bodily harm" means bodily injury that creates a high probability of death, that causes serious permanent disfigurement, or that causes a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ or other serious bodily harm.
The defendant is charged in Count One with manslaughter in the first degree in connection with the death of Dante Wright. Under Minnesota law, whoever, while committing a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor offense, acts with such force and violence that the death or great bodily harm to any person was reasonably foreseeable and causes the death of another is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree.
The elements of manslaughter in the first degree are:
1. The death of Dante Wright must be proven.
2. The defendant caused the death of Dante Wright.
3. The death of Dante Wright was caused by the defendant's committing the crime of reckless handling or use of a firearm.
There are two elements of reckless handling or use of a firearm:
1. The defendant recklessly handled or used a firearm that creates a substantial and unjustifiable risk that she is aware of and disregards.
2. The defendant handled or used the firearm so as to endanger the safety of another person.
It is not necessary for the state to prove any intent on the part of the defendant to kill anyone.
The fourth element is that the defendant committed the crime of reckless use or handling of a firearm with such force or violence that the death of another person or great bodily harm to another person was reasonably foreseeable.
The fifth element is that the defendant's act took place on or about April 11, 2021, in Hennepin County.
If you find that each of these elements has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is guilty. If you find that any element has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is not guilty.
The defendant is charged in Count Two with manslaughter in the second degree in connection with the death of Dante Wright. Under Minnesota law, whoever, by culpable negligence, whereby she creates an unreasonable risk and consciously takes a chance of causing death or great bodily harm to another person, causes the death of another, is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree.
The elements of manslaughter in the second degree are:
1. The death of Dante Wright must be proven.
2. The defendant caused the death of Dante Wright by culpable negligence, whereby the defendant created an unreasonable risk and consciously took a chance of causing death or great bodily harm.
"Culpable negligence" is intentional conduct that the defendant may not have intended to be harmful but that an ordinary and reasonably prudent person would recognize as involving a strong probability of injury to others. It is not necessary for the state to prove any intent on the part of the defendant to kill anyone.
The third element is that the defendant's act took place on or about April 11, 2021, in Hennepin County.
If you find that each of these elements has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is guilty. If you find that any element has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is not guilty.
With respect to any alleged use of a firearm, Minnesota law provides that no crime is committed and a police officer's actions are justified only when the police officer uses deadly force in the line of duty when necessary to:
1. Protect the police officer or another from apparent death or great bodily harm.
2. Effect the arrest or capture or prevent the escape of a person whom the police officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the use or threatened use of deadly force.
3. Affect the arrest or capture or prevent the escape of a person whom the police officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony if the police officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or great bodily harm if the person's apprehension is delayed.
"Deadly force" means force which the police officer uses with the purpose of causing or which the police officer should reasonably know creates a substantial risk of causing death or great bodily harm.
In determining whether the defendant should reasonably have known that the force she applied created a substantial risk of causing death or great bodily harm, you are not to consider the defendant's underlying intent or motivations. It is not necessary for the state to prove that the defendant intended to cause death or great bodily harm or believed that such harm would occur. The defendant need only have acted with intent to use force and prove that a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have foreseen a substantial risk of causing death or great bodily harm.
As to each count or defense, the kind and degree of force a police officer may lawfully use in protecting themselves or another, affecting arrest or capture, or preventing escape is limited by what a reasonable police officer in the same situation would believe to be necessary.
To determine whether or not the actions of the police officer were necessary, you must look at those facts known to the police officer at the precise moment she acted with force. The reasonableness of the particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable police officer on the scene, rather than with the benefit of hindsight, taking into consideration the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.
The defendant is not guilty of a crime if she used deadly force as authorized by law.
To prove guilt, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's use of deadly force was not authorized by law.
In this case, you have heard testimony about whether the defendant's apparent decision to use a taser was reasonable or appropriate. The statutes of Minnesota provide that a police officer is authorized to use reasonable force in the line of duty in:
1. Affecting a lawful arrest.
2. Executing legal process.
3. Enforcing an order of the court.
4. Executing any other duty imposed upon the officer by law.
You are instructed that executing a lawful arrest warrant is a duty imposed on police officers by law. The kind and degree of force a police officer may lawfully use in executing the police officer's duties is limited by what a reasonable police officer in such a situation would believe to be necessary. Any use of force beyond that is not reasonable.
To determine whether or not the actions of the police officer were reasonable, you must look at those facts known to the police officer at the moment the police officer acted with force. The reasonableness of the particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable police officer on the scene rather than with the benefit of hindsight, taking into consideration the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving.
Whether the defendant's apparent decision to use a taser was reasonable or appropriate is not a defense to the charges in this case.
Now, members of the jury, I'm going to give you some additional instructions to guide you in your deliberations and with respect to the exhibits. But at this time, the attorneys will be making their final arguments to you, and the state may proceed first.
Thank you.