may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1996).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
State of Minnesota,
Landry Scott Goodwin,
Filed December 22, 1998
Dakota County District Court
File No. K5971288
Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Attorney General, 1400 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101; and
James C. Backstrom, Dakota County Attorney, Kevin P. Shea, Assistant County Attorney, Dakota County Judicial Center, 1560 West Highway 55, Hastings, MN 55033 (for respondent)
John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Sharon E. Jacks, Assistant Public Defender, 2829 University Avenue, SE, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55414 (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Lansing, Presiding Judge, Short, Judge, and Mulally, Judge.[*]
Following an early morning argument, a 14-year-old was shot to death and his friend assaulted. A grand jury indicted Larry Goodwin for second-degree intentional murder, third-degree murder, second-degree assault, aiding and abetting second-degree assault of the decedent, and aiding and abetting second-degree assault of the decedent's friend. At trial, the court also instructed the jury on second-degree felony murder and second-degree manslaughter. The jury found Goodwin guilty of all charges and he was sentenced to 326 months imprisonment for second-degree intentional murder and to a concurrent 36 months for aiding and abetting second-degree assault. On appeal, Goodwin argues the jury's verdict finding him guilty of second-degree intentional murder and third-degree murder are legally inconsistent. See Minn. Stat. §§ 609.19, subd. 1(1) (Supp. 1997) (defining second-degree intentional murder); 609.195(a) (Supp. 1997) (defining third-degree murder). We affirm.
Goodwin argues it is legally inconsistent for the jury to find he intended to kill the victim (second-degree intentional murder), but find he did not intend to kill the victim (third-degree murder). However, the record shows the trial court's instructions comport with 10 Minnesota Practice, CRIMJIGS 11.13 (Supp. 1998) (second-degree murder-intentional) and 11.18 (1990) (third-degree murder). Each offense has three identical elements. The distinction between the two charges centers on the third of four elements. Although intent to effect death is an essential element of second-degree intentional murder, the third element of murder in the third-degree does not require the state to prove the defendant lacked the intent to kill. See Minn. Stat. §§ 609.19, subd. 1(1) (describing second-degree intentional murder as requiring specific intent); 609.195(a) (describing third-degree murder as intentional act that is eminently dangerous and performed without regard for life); State v. Netland, 535 N.W.2d 328, 332-33 (Minn. 1995) (Tomljanovich, J., concurring specially) (stating lack of intent is not essential element of third-degree murder and, therefore, does not conflict with first-degree premeditated intentional murder). Because no necessary element of either offense is subject to conflicting findings, the jury's verdict finding Goodwin guilty of four separate offenses relating to the victim's death is legally consistent. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 609.04, subd. 1 (1996), conviction was entered for the most serious offense. Under these circumstances, Goodwin is not entitled to a reduction to a lesser offense or a new trial.
[*]Retired judge of the district court, serving as judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.