US Supreme Court to Little Falls resident, Byron Smith; "buh-bye..." (Morris: 2013)

[Ghengis]

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to take up the appeal of a Minnesota man serving two life sentences for killing two teenage suspected burglars.

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2021/...l-from-scotus/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_...Smith_killings

Smith was 64 when he committed the murders, and is now 73 and will continue to reside in Oak Park Heights where he presumably goes by the name of "Pops" while waiting out the remainder of his life sentence.

[deadwood]

The Defendant wasn't even indicted by a Grand Jury as defined by Minnesota law;

628.01 INDICTMENT.
An indictment is an accusation in writing, presented by a grand jury to a competent court, charging a person with a public offense.
History: (10620) RL s 5278; 1979 c 233 s 27

However, once they opened the door of despotism then the next thing you know they will be accusing people of intentionally an unintentionally committing the same offense and the juries will be convicting them of both. But trying to reason with somebody that believes a person could be guilty of doing something with intent and without intent is like giving medicine to a dead person.

Interesting to note that the Defendant was convicted of 4 counts of murder and yet there were only two burglars. Seems like one the complainants must have perjured themselves in their probable cause affidavit. But even if they did you would have to get an indictment in order to have them answer for the offense. [See MN 628.24 INDICTMENT FOR PERJURY]

[deadwood]

Originally Posted by deadwood

The Defendant wasn't even indicted by a Grand Jury as defined by Minnesota law;

I misspoke, that statement is not true; the Defendant was indicted on two of the four murder charges. The Defendant was found guilty of all four offenses by the Jury.

The Defendant was arrested and charged with two counts of 2nd Degree Murder w/Intent without premeditation [MN 609.19(1)(1)] resulting from the death of two burglars shot inside the Defendants residence by the Defendant. A Information was filed afterwards by the Morrison County Attorney Brian J Middendorf on November 26, 2012 after a finding of probable cause was determined by the Issuing Officer for the Morrison County District Court.

The Defendant was later indicted by the Morrison County Grand Jury [No.49-CV-13-352] in April 2013 on two counts of 1st Degree Murder with premeditation and with intent to effect the death of the two burglars shot inside the Defendants residence.

[unxpctd]

It is my understanding that prosecutors in Minnesota cannot charge anyone with 1st Degree Murder. Only a grand jury can.



Even fairly obvious 1st Degree premeditated murder only gets charged with 2nd Degree initially. The grand jury reviews and decides on whether or not to indict on 1st Degree.


Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

[deadwood]

Originally Posted by unxpctd

It is my understanding that prosecutors in Minnesota cannot charge anyone with 1st Degree Murder. Only a grand jury can.



Even fairly obvious 1st Degree premeditated murder only gets charged with 2nd Degree initially. The grand jury reviews and decides on whether or not to indict on 1st Degree.


Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

See Minnesota Criminal Procedures Rule 8.02(2).

[snebarekim]

Originally Posted by Ghengis

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to take up the appeal of a Minnesota man serving two life sentences for killing two teenage suspected burglars.

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2021/...l-from-scotus/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_...Smith_killings

Smith was 64 when he committed the murders, and is now 73 and will continue to reside in Oak Park Heights where he presumably goes by the name of "Pops" while waiting out the remainder of his life sentence.

I attended a two week work related training session with Smith in 2004 (we worked in similar fields).

The training was conducted in sessions, some formatted into smaller groups. I drew a lot to be a study lab partner with Smith for an afternoon in our sessions. We even talked about guns a bit. He didnt seem to be a fan of firearms I recall, so it surprised me some about the multiple guns he had.

My impression was that Smith was a highly educated, but strange bird, with an odd look in his gaze, strange social quirks. Maybe even on the Aspergers spectrum somewhere.

For some reason I was not surprised when I read he ambush murdered those two little idiots.

[ARPARP]

I don't think Smith should be serving life in prison based on what I've read but he clearly went out and made some pretty rough statements that cooked his goose like saying he was cleaning up a mess that is worse than diarrhea etc. I think the biggest issue is here that he "seemed" like a nutcase and it may have led to his conviction. Its kind of like how OJ got a longer term for the Las Vegas incident than a technical first time offender. You got to wonder if he acted like an old man scared for his life who felt bad that these teenagers made bad decisions etc. that he would be in this situation.

[snebarekim]

Originally Posted by ARPARP

I don't think Smith should be serving life in prison based on what I've read but he clearly went out and made some pretty rough statements that cooked his goose like saying he was cleaning up a mess that is worse than diarrhea etc. I think the biggest issue is here that he "seemed" like a nutcase and it may have led to his conviction. Its kind of like how OJ got a longer term for the Las Vegas incident than a technical first time offender. You got to wonder if he acted like an old man scared for his life who felt bad that these teenagers made bad decisions etc. that he would be in this situation.

The statements sunk him for sure. He also recorded the entire thing on audio, which also provided solid evidence to sink him.

Again, I thought he was kind of strange. Not creepy weird strange, just odd.

I followed that case closely.

[Somnifor]

His main problem is that he wounded those kids first, to the point where they were incapacitated and then shot them again at close range while they were on the ground. Castle doctrine doesn't give you the right to a kill shot if you have already ended the threat.