## Facts

- Eric Joseph Coleman drove a snowmobile at night on a Minnesota lake where many people were ice fishing.
- Coleman had been drinking, and evidence at trial showed his alcohol concentration was more than twice the legal limit for operating a motor vehicle.
- Coleman drove approximately 58 miles per hour across the ice in an area containing multiple fishing houses and people on foot.
- A family of four had set up a portable ice-fishing house that was more than six feet tall and had reflectors on all four corners; the family’s pickup truck was parked nearby.
- Coleman drove his snowmobile directly toward the family, struck and killed the family’s eight-year-old son, injured the boy’s father, hit the pickup truck, and continued through the fishing house.
- A grand jury indicted Coleman for third-degree murder, two counts of criminal vehicular homicide, two counts of gross-misdemeanor criminal vehicular operation (CVO), and two counts of gross-misdemeanor driving while impaired (DWI).
- A jury found Coleman guilty on all counts.
- At trial, Coleman did not object to the third-degree-murder jury instruction, which used a model instruction describing the required mental state as acting in a “reckless or wanton manner with the knowledge that someone may be killed.”
- The state also introduced evidence of a prior alcohol-related driving incident to show Coleman’s knowledge of the dangers of intoxicated driving.
- The district court entered convictions on all counts and sentenced Coleman to 150 months in prison for third-degree murder and 365 days in jail for one CVO count, to be served concurrently; the court did not impose sentences on the remaining counts.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court plainly erred, under unobjected-to plain-error review, by instructing the jury on the mens rea for third-degree murder in a way that permitted conviction based on mere knowledge that “someone may be killed.”
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of Coleman’s prior alcohol-related driving incident as other-acts evidence to prove knowledge or absence of mistake.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove third-degree “depraved mind” murder under Minn. Stat. § 609.195(a).
4. Whether prosecutorial statements in opening and closing argument deprived Coleman of a fair trial.
5. Whether Minnesota law prohibited entry of multiple CVO convictions and multiple DWI convictions arising from the same behavioral incident.

## Decision

- Affirmed Coleman’s conviction of third-degree murder.
- Held that, because Coleman did not object to the third-degree-murder instruction, any instructional defect did not warrant reversal under plain-error review.
- Held the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of the prior alcohol-related driving incident for a permissible, non-character purpose, with limiting instructions.
- Held the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that Coleman committed an act eminently dangerous to others and that the attending circumstances showed disregard for human life.
- Held the prosecutor’s remarks, considered in context and in light of the record and instructions, did not require a new trial.
- Reversed in part and remanded for the district court to vacate one CVO conviction and one DWI conviction because each pair of convictions arose from the same behavioral incident.

## Legal Principles

- Third-degree murder under Minn. Stat. § 609.195(a) requires proof that the defendant caused death by perpetrating an act “eminently dangerous to others” and “evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life.”
- When a defendant fails to object to a jury instruction at trial, appellate review is for plain error; relief requires an error that is plain and that affected the defendant’s substantial rights.
- Other-acts evidence may be admitted for limited, non-character purposes such as proving knowledge or absence of mistake if it is relevant, its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, and the jury is properly instructed on the limited use of the evidence.
- In sufficiency review, an appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and asks whether a reasonable jury could find the charged offense proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Minnesota’s single-behavioral-incident rule bars multiple convictions for certain offenses based on the same conduct; the remedy is to vacate the duplicative conviction(s) while leaving the remaining valid conviction(s) intact.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Coleman’s third-degree depraved-mind murder conviction arising from an intoxicated, high-speed snowmobile crash on a populated ice-fishing lake, rejected his challenges to the jury instruction, evidentiary ruling, sufficiency of the evidence, and alleged prosecutorial misconduct, and remanded only to correct the judgment by vacating one duplicative CVO conviction and one duplicative DWI conviction stemming from the same incident.


State v. Coleman, 944 N.W.2d 469 (2020)