may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1998).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
State of Minnesota,
Jamie Lynn Dennis-Gianakos,
Filed March 23, 1999
Clay County District Court
File No. K297331
Michael A. Hatch, Minnesota Attorney General, Robert A. Stanich, Assistant Attorney General, 1400 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101
Todd S. Webb, Clay County Attorney, 807 North 11th Street, Moorhead, MN 56561 (for respondent)
John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Lawrence W. Pry, Assistant Public Defender, 2829 University Avenue S.E., Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55414 (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Short, Presiding Judge, Kalitowski, Judge, and Klaphake, Judge.
On January 28, 1997, Michael Gianakos (Gianakos) confessed to staging the robbery of a Super 8 Motel in Moorhead, Minnesota and named Jamie Lynn Dennis-Gianakos (appellant) as his accomplice. Although Gianakos recanted his accomplice statement, appellant was convicted of aiding and abetting theft. Appellant argues: (1) the evidence corroborating Gianakos's statement is insufficient to support her conviction; and (2) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting Gianakos's statement under Minn. R. Evid. 803(24). We affirm.
The record shows: (1) Gianakos's hands were tightly bound behind his back when officers arrived at the crime scene, indicating someone assisted him during the robbery; (2) appellant did not want details of the crime when she arrived at the scene, but rather walked over to Gianakos, touched his hand and smiled at him; (3) during his interview with investigators after the robbery, Gianakos left the law enforcement center to drive appellant home, and, when he failed to return, appellant told officers Gianakos could not finish the interview because they had a date; (6) appellant also told officers she and Gianakos would not remain at their residence until another interview was scheduled, but when officers attempted to call Gianakos several times that evening, they received busy signals; and (7) after learning Gianakos confessed, appellant directed officers to the stolen postage stamps, money, and duct tape. These facts corroborate Gianakos's accomplice statement and sufficiently support appellant's conviction.
Although Gianakos testified his accomplice statement was coerced and "hypothetical," the record shows: (1) Gianakos testified during appellant's trial, admitted to making the prior statement, and was available for cross-examination; (2) Gianakos's statement was self-incriminating; (3) Gianakos has two children with appellant and married her two weeks after the robbery; (4) Gianakos was given several opportunities to leave this investigation before making his statement; and (5) investigating officers testified they did not threaten or coerce Gianakos during his interview. Given these facts and corroborating evidence, we conclude the trial court properly admitted Gianakos's statement under Minn. R. Evid. 803(24).