This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012).
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A13-1140
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
vs.
Anthony Cortez Gray, Appellant.
Filed September 15, 2014 Affirmed Schellhas, Judge
Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-CR-12-25098
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and
Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Elizabeth R. Johnston, Assistant County Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)
Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Richard Schmitz, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Schellhas, Judge; and
Rodenberg, Judge. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
SCHELLHAS, Judge
Appellant requests resentencing or a new trial, arguing that the district court erred
by dismissing a prospective juror for cause on the basis of race and ordering lifetime
registration as a predatory offender. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellant Anthony Gray is obligated to register as a predatory offender due to his
2004 guilty plea to a charge of attempted fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct under
Minn. Stat. §§ 609.17, .3451 (2002), amended from an original charge of attempted
fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct under Minn. Stat. §§ 609.17, .345, subd. 1(c)
(2002). In August 2012, respondent State of Minnesota charged Gray with failure to
register as a predatory offender under Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 5(a) (2010), and Gray
proceeded to trial before a jury.
During voir dire, prospective juror B.P. indicated that he had concerns with police
but could be impartial. When the prosecutor asked whether any of the prospective jurors
had prior contact with police in some capacity other than a traffic stop, B.P. did not
disclose prior police contacts that culminated in his admissions to possession of drug
paraphernalia and giving false information to police. For reasons contained in a sealed
portion of the record, the prosecutor moved to dismiss B.P. for cause.1 Gray opposed the
motion, and the district court denied the motion. When the prosecutor later renewed his
1 The sealed portion of the transcript contains the reasons for both the prosecutor’s motions and the court’s rulings.
2 motion to strike B.P. for cause, the district court questioned B.P. about his past police
contacts. In response to the court’s questioning, B.P. disclosed his previous contact with
police that involved a drug charge and also disclosed witnessing his father’s contact with
police. B.P. could not remember any other contacts with police. Upon further questioning
by the prosecutor, B.P. acknowledged a 2008 adjudication for possession of drug
paraphernalia and disclosed that he had been adjudicated delinquent in June 2009 for
giving false information to police. He stated that he did not disclose his 2009 adjudication
for giving false information to police because he “didn’t remember.” The district court
then dismissed B.P. for cause.
The jury convicted Gray of failure to register as a predatory offender.
This appeal follows.
DECISION
Dismissal of B.P. for Cause
On the basis of B.P.’s race, Gray asks this court to apply Batson to B.P.’s for-
cause dismissal. In State v. Bowers, 482 N.W.2d 774, 776 (Minn. 1992), the supreme
court noted that neither the Supreme Court nor any state court has applied Batson to for-
cause dismissals and that “peremptory challenges are quite different from challenges for
cause.” The supreme court said that “it would be a rare case indeed in which a Batson
inquiry would be necessary for a challenge for cause.” Id. The court further said that “a
case may arise in which the facts undoubtedly suggest that the prosecutor has challenged
for cause a juror for racially discriminatory reasons, and the trial court has erred in
granting the motion.” Id. But the court also stated that “if a prosecutor has demonstrated
3 that a challenge for cause is necessary, then a fortiori the prosecutor has met the standard
required for Batson,” id., and concluded that the defendant had not presented a rare case
that caused a Batson inquiry to be necessary for a challenge for cause, id. at 778. See
generally State v. Riddley, 776 N.W.2d 419, 431 (Minn. 2009) (citing Bowers and
rejecting the necessity of a Batson challenge to a for-cause dismissal).
We first analyze whether the district court erred by granting the state’s for-cause
dismissal of B.P. Under Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.02, subd. 5(1), a juror may be challenged
for cause if “[t]he juror’s state of mind . . . satisfies the court that the juror cannot try the
case impartially and without prejudice to the substantial rights of the challenging party.”
“[T]he challenging party has the burden of proving that the juror expressed a ‘state of
mind’ demonstrating ‘actual bias’ towards the case or either party.” State v. Munt, 831
N.W.2d 569, 577 (Minn. 2013). “When a juror expresses such a state of mind, the district
court must either excuse the juror for cause” or rehabilitate the juror. State v. Prtine, 784
N.W.2d 303, 310 (Minn. 2010) (quotation omitted). “A prospective juror may be
rehabilitated” if, after “instructions and additional questions” from the district court, “the
juror states unequivocally that he or she will follow the district court’s instructions and
will set aside any preconceived notions and fairly evaluate the evidence.” Id. Appellate
courts “give deference to the district court’s ruling on challenges for cause” because “the
question of whether a juror is impartial is a credibility determination.” Id. Appellate
courts review for-cause dismissals for abuse of discretion. Munt, 831 N.W.2d at 577.
Gray argues that the district court erred by treating B.P.’s “perceived
dishonesty . . . [as] an independent ground for a cause challenge.” Although Gray is
4 correct that perceived dishonesty is not a ground listed in Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.02, subd.
5(1), the district court dismissed B.P. because of its concerns about B.P.’s ability to be
impartial, not because of B.P.’s perceived dishonesty. A juror’s inability to “try the case
impartially and without prejudice to the substantial rights of the challenging party” is a
ground for a for-cause challenge. Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.02, subd. 5(1).
Gray argues that “[t]he actual bias ground has been narrowly interpreted by the
Minnesota Supreme Court” in Munt. But Munt notes that the supreme court’s “review of
the district court’s determination of juror impartiality is especially deferential.” Munt,
831 N.W.2d at 576. In Munt, the supreme court affirmed the district court’s
determination that a juror did not express actual bias that would interfere with her
impartiality, stating that it “defer[red] to the district court’s decision” “[b]ecause the
record supports that determination.” Id. at 579–80. Rather than establishing a narrow
interpretation of actual bias, Munt confirms an appellate court’s deference to a district
court’s for-cause dismissal.
Here, the record supports the district court’s concerns about B.P.’s ability to be
impartial. When the prosecutor asked whether any juror had contact with the police in
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012).
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A13-1140
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
vs.
Anthony Cortez Gray, Appellant.
Filed September 15, 2014 Affirmed Schellhas, Judge
Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-CR-12-25098
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and
Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Elizabeth R. Johnston, Assistant County Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)
Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Richard Schmitz, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Schellhas, Judge; and
Rodenberg, Judge. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
SCHELLHAS, Judge
Appellant requests resentencing or a new trial, arguing that the district court erred
by dismissing a prospective juror for cause on the basis of race and ordering lifetime
registration as a predatory offender. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellant Anthony Gray is obligated to register as a predatory offender due to his
2004 guilty plea to a charge of attempted fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct under
Minn. Stat. §§ 609.17, .3451 (2002), amended from an original charge of attempted
fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct under Minn. Stat. §§ 609.17, .345, subd. 1(c)
(2002). In August 2012, respondent State of Minnesota charged Gray with failure to
register as a predatory offender under Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 5(a) (2010), and Gray
proceeded to trial before a jury.
During voir dire, prospective juror B.P. indicated that he had concerns with police
but could be impartial. When the prosecutor asked whether any of the prospective jurors
had prior contact with police in some capacity other than a traffic stop, B.P. did not
disclose prior police contacts that culminated in his admissions to possession of drug
paraphernalia and giving false information to police. For reasons contained in a sealed
portion of the record, the prosecutor moved to dismiss B.P. for cause.1 Gray opposed the
motion, and the district court denied the motion. When the prosecutor later renewed his
1 The sealed portion of the transcript contains the reasons for both the prosecutor’s motions and the court’s rulings.
2 motion to strike B.P. for cause, the district court questioned B.P. about his past police
contacts. In response to the court’s questioning, B.P. disclosed his previous contact with
police that involved a drug charge and also disclosed witnessing his father’s contact with
police. B.P. could not remember any other contacts with police. Upon further questioning
by the prosecutor, B.P. acknowledged a 2008 adjudication for possession of drug
paraphernalia and disclosed that he had been adjudicated delinquent in June 2009 for
giving false information to police. He stated that he did not disclose his 2009 adjudication
for giving false information to police because he “didn’t remember.” The district court
then dismissed B.P. for cause.
The jury convicted Gray of failure to register as a predatory offender.
This appeal follows.
DECISION
Dismissal of B.P. for Cause
On the basis of B.P.’s race, Gray asks this court to apply Batson to B.P.’s for-
cause dismissal. In State v. Bowers, 482 N.W.2d 774, 776 (Minn. 1992), the supreme
court noted that neither the Supreme Court nor any state court has applied Batson to for-
cause dismissals and that “peremptory challenges are quite different from challenges for
cause.” The supreme court said that “it would be a rare case indeed in which a Batson
inquiry would be necessary for a challenge for cause.” Id. The court further said that “a
case may arise in which the facts undoubtedly suggest that the prosecutor has challenged
for cause a juror for racially discriminatory reasons, and the trial court has erred in
granting the motion.” Id. But the court also stated that “if a prosecutor has demonstrated
3 that a challenge for cause is necessary, then a fortiori the prosecutor has met the standard
required for Batson,” id., and concluded that the defendant had not presented a rare case
that caused a Batson inquiry to be necessary for a challenge for cause, id. at 778. See
generally State v. Riddley, 776 N.W.2d 419, 431 (Minn. 2009) (citing Bowers and
rejecting the necessity of a Batson challenge to a for-cause dismissal).
We first analyze whether the district court erred by granting the state’s for-cause
dismissal of B.P. Under Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.02, subd. 5(1), a juror may be challenged
for cause if “[t]he juror’s state of mind . . . satisfies the court that the juror cannot try the
case impartially and without prejudice to the substantial rights of the challenging party.”
“[T]he challenging party has the burden of proving that the juror expressed a ‘state of
mind’ demonstrating ‘actual bias’ towards the case or either party.” State v. Munt, 831
N.W.2d 569, 577 (Minn. 2013). “When a juror expresses such a state of mind, the district
court must either excuse the juror for cause” or rehabilitate the juror. State v. Prtine, 784
N.W.2d 303, 310 (Minn. 2010) (quotation omitted). “A prospective juror may be
rehabilitated” if, after “instructions and additional questions” from the district court, “the
juror states unequivocally that he or she will follow the district court’s instructions and
will set aside any preconceived notions and fairly evaluate the evidence.” Id. Appellate
courts “give deference to the district court’s ruling on challenges for cause” because “the
question of whether a juror is impartial is a credibility determination.” Id. Appellate
courts review for-cause dismissals for abuse of discretion. Munt, 831 N.W.2d at 577.
Gray argues that the district court erred by treating B.P.’s “perceived
dishonesty . . . [as] an independent ground for a cause challenge.” Although Gray is
4 correct that perceived dishonesty is not a ground listed in Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.02, subd.
5(1), the district court dismissed B.P. because of its concerns about B.P.’s ability to be
impartial, not because of B.P.’s perceived dishonesty. A juror’s inability to “try the case
impartially and without prejudice to the substantial rights of the challenging party” is a
ground for a for-cause challenge. Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.02, subd. 5(1).
Gray argues that “[t]he actual bias ground has been narrowly interpreted by the
Minnesota Supreme Court” in Munt. But Munt notes that the supreme court’s “review of
the district court’s determination of juror impartiality is especially deferential.” Munt,
831 N.W.2d at 576. In Munt, the supreme court affirmed the district court’s
determination that a juror did not express actual bias that would interfere with her
impartiality, stating that it “defer[red] to the district court’s decision” “[b]ecause the
record supports that determination.” Id. at 579–80. Rather than establishing a narrow
interpretation of actual bias, Munt confirms an appellate court’s deference to a district
court’s for-cause dismissal.
Here, the record supports the district court’s concerns about B.P.’s ability to be
impartial. When the prosecutor asked whether any juror had contact with the police in
some capacity other than a traffic stop, B.P. did not disclose prior police contacts that
culminated in his admissions to possession of drug paraphernalia and giving false
information to police. B.P. disclosed that he had police contact through traffic stops and
that he disagreed “[a]t least three times” with the reasons for those stops, but he stated
that none of the police stops resulted in a warning, a traffic citation, or an arrest. In
response to the court’s questioning, B.P. disclosed his previous contact with police that
5 involved a drug charge and also disclosed witnessing his father’s contact with police.
B.P. could not remember any other contacts with police. Upon further questioning by the
prosecutor, B.P. acknowledged his 2008 adjudication for possession of drug
paraphernalia and disclosed that he had been adjudicated delinquent in June 2009 for
giving false information to police. He stated that he did not disclose his 2009 adjudication
for giving false information to police because he “didn’t remember.”
In deference to the district court’s assessment of B.P.’s impartiality, we conclude
that the district court did not err by dismissing B.P. for cause. We further conclude that
this is not a rare case necessitating a Batson inquiry into the state’s for-cause challenge.
Lifetime registration as predatory offender
Minnesota Statutes section 243.166, subdivision 2 (2010), requires the district
court to “tell the person of the duty to register under this section and that, if the person
fails to comply with the registration requirements, information about the offender may be
made available to the public through electronic, computerized, or other accessible
means.” If the district court fails to give the required notice at sentencing, “the assigned
corrections agent shall notify the person of the requirements of this section.” Minn. Stat.
§ 243.166, subd. 2.
At Gray’s sentencing hearing, the district court noted that Gray has a lifetime
registration requirement. Gray argues, and the state concedes, that the district court’s
statement to Gray at his sentencing hearing—that he is subject to a lifetime registration
requirement—was erroneous. But the erroneous statement does not require reversal,
remand, or any action by the district court. First, in the court’s written sentencing order,
6 the court checked the box for predatory offender, which is followed by “You shall
register as a predatory offender in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 243.166.” The language
in that order is correct. Second, the duration of registration is imposed by the department
of corrections and cannot be modified by the district court or this court. See Minn. Stat.
§ 243.166, subd. 2 (“The court may not modify the person’s duty to register in the
pronounced sentence or disposition order.”).
Affirmed.