Courtroom Weekly: Gunshots, gangs and Toys R Us

October 3, 2013

by: the State Court Staff

Courts rule on suicide, self-defense, street gangs and slides

Courtroom Weekly The latest and greatest in court cases around the nation In this issue... Featured case News from Delaware News from Minnesota News from Massachusetts

Featured case Woman convicted for firing warning shot at husband gets a new trial   Court: Florida First District Court of Appeal By Jong Son In May of 2012, Marissa Alexander was sentenced to 20 years in prison for firing a warning shot at her abusive husband who had threatened to kill her. Her conviction sparked criticisms from civil rights groups concerning mandatory sentences and Florida’s controversial “Stand Your Ground” law. In her defense, Alexander unsuccessfully used the Stand Your Ground law, which can provide protection to individuals who use deadly force where they feel like their lives are being threatened. On August 1, 2010, Alexander was involved in an altercation with her husband, who tried to strangle her. She then fled to the garage of their home hoping to escape in her car. When she realized she didn't have her keys, Alexander returned to her house with a gun for protection. Her husband continued to threaten her, at which point she fired one warning shot into the air. At her trial, she was denied the use of the Stand Your Ground law because her decision to return to her home was not deemed a decision that someone who feared for her life would make. A jury convicted her after just twelve minutes of deliberation. On September 26, 2013, the Florida First District Court of Appeal granted Alexander a new trial, stating: “ We reject her contention that the trial court erred in declining to grant her immunity from prosecution under Florida's Stand Your Ground law, but we remand for a new trial because the jury instructions on self-defense were erroneous. ” The jury instructions had misleadingly been written to impose the prosecution’s burden of proving Alexander’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt onto Alexander, who instead had to prove she acted in self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. In Florida, the defendant does not have the burden of proof to prove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown, D-Fla., expressed her dissatisfaction with the prosecution of Alexander, stating: “ Arresting and prosecuting her when no one was hurt does not make any sense. ...What was certainly absent from the courtroom during Marissa's trial was mercy and justice. Indeed, the three-year plea deal from State Attorney Angela Corey is not mercy, and a mandatory 20-year sentence is not justice. ” Prosecutors, on the other hand, remained gratified that the court affirmed Alexander’s prior Stand Your Ground ruling, in that it will continue to deny her any pre-trial immunity from prosecution.

News from Delaware Delaware Supreme Court upholds gang participation statute   Court: Delaware Supreme Court By Matt Latourelle The Delaware Supreme Court, on September 25, unanimously decided to uphold the state's gang participation statute, which states that assisting or participating in a street gang is enough to be charged with a felony. The statute, passed in 2003, states: “ A person who actively participates in any criminal street gang with knowledge that its members engage in or have engaged in a pattern of criminal gang activity and who knowingly promotes, furthers or assists in any criminal conduct by members of that gang which would constitute a felony under Delaware law, shall be guilty of illegal gang participation. Illegal gang participation is a class F felony. ” The case was brought by defendants Marc Taylor and Kevin Rasin, alleged members of the Trapstars gang, who were convicted of various crimes. On appeal, their arguments were two-fold. First, they claimed that the law was too vague because it didn't define the term "actively participates". They also claimed that the statute violated their right to free association. This was the first legal challenge to the gang participation statute. Justices unanimously shot down both of the defendants' arguments, explaining: “ a person of ordinary intelligence can understand what it means to actively participate in a criminal street gang’s criminal conduct, and there is no constitutional right to assemble for the purpose of committing a crime. ” The court also clarified that the law is directed at criminal activity and that "[m]ere association with a street gang, without more, does not constitute forbidden conduct under the statute." Deputy Attorney General Ipek Medford explained that the law helps prosecute gang members by allowing various types of their criminal activity to be presented in court in order to prove a pattern of criminal activity over time.

News from Minnesota Minnesota Court of Appeals deems assisted suicide statute unconstitutional   Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals By Alma Cook The Minnesota Court of Appeals has ruled that a state law prohibiting "advising, encouraging or assisting in" a suicide is unconstitutional under the First Amendment protection of free speech. The decision, handed down by a three-judge panel on September 30, was considered a victory for right-to-die advocates. Two employees of the Final Exit Network (FEN) a Florida nonprofit offering guidance, planning and education to people who want to end their own lives, are charged with involvement in the suicide of Doreen Dunn. Dunn, a 57-year-old Apple Valley woman who suffered from chronic pain for more than ten years, was found dead in 2007. The cause of death, according to the autopsy, was heart disease. Not until a separate investigation in Georgia linked FEN to her death did authorities suspect she committed suicide. Prosecutors claim that Dunn committed suicide through helium asphyxiation—the standard method of "self-deliverance" promoted by FEN. Though no evidence of the equipment was found in her home, telephone records indicate that Dunn had frequent contact with FEN representatives in the months prior and flight records reveal that two FEN members made single-day roundtrip flights to Dunn's Minnesota home on the day of her death. In December 2012, Dakota County District Judge Karen J. Asphaug ruled that the state's prohibition of advising a suicide violated the FEN members' right to free speech, but the statute's use of the word "encouraging" was deemed constitutional after it was narrowly defined. The state appealed. The second time around, the word "encouraging" did not make the cut. Though the FEN members still face charges of assisting suicide and interfering with a death scene, the appellate court found unconstitutional the charges against them for "encouraging" Dunn's decision. Judge Louise Bjorkman wrote, “ As written, [the statute] criminalizes any and all expressions of support, guidance, planning, or education to people who want to end their own lives, whether from a public platform, such as a book, or in the private setting of a hospital room or family home. It likely criminalizes even patently political speech endorsing a right to die. As the district court concluded, and the state now concedes, the state's interest in preventing suicide does not justify these extreme limitations on protected speech about suicide. ” The case has been remanded to district court for reconsideration.

News from Massachusetts No fun and games in lawsuit over deadly, defective toy   Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court By Susan Lawrence The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued a ruling on September 13, 2013, which upheld a jury award of $2.64 million in compensatory damages and $18 million in punitive damages against Toys R Us after a woman died from injuries caused when she slid head first down an inflatable pool slide which collapsed. The woman’s family sued the toy giant for importing the slide and selling it to U.S. consumers without testing the product to make sure it complied with federal safety regulations for swimming pool slides. In 2006, Michael and Robin Aleo, along with their 15-month-old daughter, traveled to Andover, Massachusetts to visit Michael’s uncle, William Letsky. William’s wife, Sarah, had bought a Banzai Falls In-Ground Pool Slide and installed the slide next to their in-ground swimming pool. An electric fan kept the pool slide inflated. Robin was in the process of going down the slide face first when it suddenly collapsed as she reached the bottom. Her head hit the cement near the side of swimming pool before she slid into the pool. Robin’s husband Michael, William Letsky and another man pulled her from the pool. She was airlifted to a hospital in Boston, where doctors discovered she had a severed spinal cord. Doctors determined Robin would never move or breathe on her own again, and her family removed her from life support the day after the accident. Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Howard J. Whitehead presided over the jury trial in 2008. The jury found Toys R Us was liable for negligence, breach of warranty, and wrongful death. Toys R Us appealed the jury’s verdict to the Supreme Court. The toy company argued the trial court should not have excluded evidence regarding misuse of the slide and that the judge should not have allowed attorneys for plaintiff, Michael Aleo, to say the slide was 'illegal' in front of the jury. Lawyers for Toys R Us also argued the evidence did not show negligence or gross negligence and the award was so excessive it violated the company’s rights to due process. Toys R Us imported the slide from China. The company contracted with a safety testing company who provided safety certificates to show the slide met federal regulations and toy industry standards in several areas. However no tests were done, or requested, by any parties to show the slide complied with federal safety regulations for swimming pool slides which have been in place since 1976. A federal appeals court ruled in 1978 the safety standards for swimming pools were legally justifiable. In ruling on the appeal brought by Toys R Us, the Massachusetts court quoted a portion of the decades-old ruling and pointed out the regulations were created to help prevent deaths and injuries "including 'quadriplegia and paraplegia resulting from users (primarily adults using the swimming pool slide for the first time) sliding down the slide in a head first position and striking the bottom of the pool'" To comply with federal regulations in the U.S., swimming pool slides must undergo tests involving head first sliding and be able to support up to 350 pounds. A warning label from the Banzai Falls In-Ground Pool Slide and the instruction manual that came with the slide were submitted as evidence in the trial. Both note the slide can only support a weight of two hundred pounds and state sliding head first may result in injury or death. The Supreme Court found the jury’s finding of gross negligence on the part of Toys R Us was valid. The company did not carefully test the product to make sure it was safe. The company employed just one safety compliance officer to review approximately 4,000 safety compliance certificates per month. A witness at the trial testified that “ ...an indemnity provision in Toys R Us’s purported vendor agreement meant that, if Toys R Us lost money due to a product defect, it could try to recover the money from the Chinese vendor. Based on this testimony, the plaintiff permissibly argued, and the jury could have found, that Toys R Us was indifferent to the safety of the slide, because it believed it would not be financially liable for any defects. ” The court upheld the jury verdict against Toys R Us. It was not until 2012 that Toys R Us and Walmart announced their companies were cooperating with U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission to recall 21,000 Banzai In-Ground Pool Water Slides.

See also

• Courtroom Weekly