STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF RAMSEY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT CRIMINAL DIVISION State of Minnesota, Plaintiff, vs. ORDER 3 MOTION TO DISMISS Case File No.: 62-CR-16-8110 Jeronimo Yanez, Defendant. This matter came before the undersigned Judge of the District Court on Defendant?s motion to dismiss the complaint. Jeffrey S. Paulsen, Esq., Special Assistant Ramsey County Attorney; Richard J. Dusterhoft, Esq., Assistant Ramsey County Attorney; and Clayton M. Robinson, Esq., Assistant Ramsey County Attorney, appeared on behalf of the State. Paul C. Engh, Esq.; Thomas Kelly, Esq.; and Earl P. Gray, Esq., appeared on behalf of the Defendant Jeronimo Yanez, who personally appeared. This court, having in mind the arguments of counsel, the applicable law and all ?les and records herein, issues the following order. IT IS ORDERED: l. Defendant?s motion to dismiss the complaint is DENIED. 2. The parties shall appear for an omnibus hearing on February 27, 2017, at 9:00 am. before the undersigned for the purpose of Defendant entering a plea to the complaint. The accompanying memorandum is incorporated herein by reference. February 15, 2017 w; lyi?_i_ I William H. District Court Judge MEMORANDUM Defendant Jeronimo Yanez moves to dismiss the complaint. Defendant?s arguments focus primarily on the ?rst count of the complaint, Manslaughter in the Second Degree. Minnesota law states that manslaughter in the second degree occurs when a person causes the death of another as a result of the ?person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another.? Minn. Stat. The statute has objective and subjective elements. The objective element requires a ?nding that a defendant?s act was "a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the [defendant?s] situation.? State v. Frost, 342 317, 319 (Minn. 1983); State v. Back, 775 866, 869, n. 5 (Minn. 2009). The subjective element requires a ?nding as to the defendant?s state of mind, speci?cally a ?recklessness? in the form of an ?actual conscious disregard for the risk created by the defendant's conduct.? State v. Back at 869, n. 5. A defendant?s "state of mind is generally proven circumstantially, by inference from words or acts of the [defendant] both before and after the incident." State v. Johnson, 616 720, 726 (Minn. 2000). The ?rst issue raised by Defendant is whether the conduct of the Decedent, Philando Castile, requires a dismissal of the complaint. Defendant characterizes Decedent?s conduct as ?exonerating? Defendant. The law that applies to Defendant?s argument is unequivocal. A decedent?s allegedly unreasonable conduct does not, in and of itself, require the dismissal of a complaint. State v. Crace, 289 54, 60 (Minn. 1979). However, a decedent's unreasonable conduct is relevant to the question of whether the defendant?s conduct constituted a crime. State v. Schaub, 44 61, 66 (Minn. 1950). The law can be summarized in the following terms (as applied in a shooting death during a hunting incident): The negligence on the part of the victim is not a defense in a criminal case[.] [H]owever, in considering whether or not the defendant exercised the care of a reasonably prudent hunter or failed to exercise such care the jury may take into consideration the conduct of the victim and all of the other circumstances that existed at the time the accident occurred. In other words, if there was any negligence on the part of the victim, this can be considered . . . only insofar as it tends to show that the defendant was not himself [criminally] negligent or that his acts did not constitute the proximate cause of the accident. State v. Crace at 60, fn. 5. Applying the law to this case, Defendant?s argument that Decedent?s alleged misconduct ?exonerates? Defendant fails because a victim?s unreasonable conduct is never an absolute defense to a criminal charge. Consequently, the complaint cannot be dismissed based on Defendant?s first argument. Defendant?s second argument is that the State?s evidence is not ?substantial? enough to allow the case to go to trial. The question posed, at this stage of the case, is the following: Given the facts disclosed by the record, is it fair and reasonable to require the defendant to stand trial? State 12. Florence, 239 892, 902 (Minn. 1976). Consideration of the question is based solely on the facts presented at the time of the motion to dismiss, including the squad video that recorded the events leading to and following the shooting of Mr. Castile. The parties? disagreement lies primarily in the interpretation of, and the inferences arising from, the facts presented when assessing Defendant?s conduct. In that regard, the State has identified an expert who supports the State?s interpretation. This court concludes that the evidence, as interpreted by the State, is substantial enough to create a likelihood that, if the State?s interpretation is accepted by a jury, the State could prevail. Consequently, and to answer the speci?c question raised by Defendant?s second argument, it is fair and reasonable to allow this matter to proceed to trial. This order disposes of the narrow issues raised by Defendant?s motion. No inference can or should be drawn from this order and memorandum as to the ultimate merits of the State?s and Defendant?s positions. WHL