Justices: Hearsay doesn’t derail murder conviction

Listen to this article

In Brief:

• Minnesota Supreme Court denies Adam Fravel‘s request for a new trial
• Court rules alleged hearsay error was harmless and did not affect verdict
• Conviction stems from 2023 murder of Madeline Kingsbury in Winona
• Evidence included pattern of domestic abuse and witness testimony

The Minnesota Supreme Court has denied convicted murderer Adam Fravel’s bid for a new trial in the death of his former girlfriend and mother of his children, Madeline Kingsbury.

According to the court record, Kingsbury dropped her children off at a Winona day care in March 2023. That evening, one of her friends filed a missing person report. Two months later, Kingsbury’s body was found in a rural ditch. She was wrapped in a bedsheet that matched the bedding in her home.

Fravel was found guilty of first-degree domestic abuse murder, first-degree premeditated murder, second-degree intentional murder, and second-degree felony murder. He appealed, claiming several trial errors including admission of hearsay statements regarding a nationally publicized incident of domestic abuse.

Kingsbury and Fravel had a tumultuous relationship that resulted in two children. According to family members and friends, the pair separated multiple times during seven years. Two witnesses said they personally saw Fravel physically abuse Kingsbury, and four orthers said that they saw injuries on Kingsbury that were consistent with abuse. Notably, many said that Kingsbury told them of an incident that occurred between her and Fravel in September 2021. During this incident, Fravel allegedly choked Kingsbury, shoved her into the couch, and threatened her life by saying if she did not act how he expected her to, she would end up like Gabby Petito.

In 2021, Petito was on a road trip with her boyfriend when she was reported missing by her family. Ultimately, her remains were found in Wyoming and she was determined to have been strangled.

Fravel told police that he was “infatuated” with the case. However, according to Fravel’s version of events, he merely hugged Kingsbury from behind and joked by asking her, “you don’t want to end up like Gabby Petito do you?” Fravel denied that he was physically violent with her.

Fravel argued that the district court abused its discretion by admitting Kingsbury’s hearsay statements about the September 2021 strangulation incident under the residual exception. Hearsay is generally inadmissible unless an exception applies, including the residual exception for statements with sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness.

During a pretrial hearing, the prosecution presented testimony from Kingsbury’s family and friends about her statements describing the domestic violence incident in which Petito’s name was evoked. The prosecution sought to admit statements that Kingsbury said Fravel choked and shoved her in front of their children, warning she could end up like Gabby Petito. Fravel objected on hearsay grounds, but the district court largely overruled the objections and found the statements admissible under the residual exception.

At trial, many witnesses testified about domestic violence incidents. Friends testified that they saw Fravel backhand Kingsbury, shove her into a wall or refrigerator, and that Kingsbury had bruises on her neck at other times, and one friend said Kingsbury reported being pushed into a wall.

Kingsbury’s father and stepmother also testified that they urged her to report to police the incident in which she was warned not to end up like Petito. Her stepmother stated she saw a red mark on Kingsbury’s neck. Kingsbury returned to Fravel, after he insisted that his behavior was a joke.

Text messages between Kingsbury and Fravel from September 2021 were introduced. In those messages, Kingsbury said she was not OK with him putting his hand around her neck and pushing her down in front of the children, warning him not to do it again. Fravel responded dismissively. Kingsbury told him to stop and said he had crossed a line.

On appeal, Fravel argued that the district court abused its discretion by admitting Kingsbury’s statements under the residual exception because other evidence was more probative. He also argued that the statements influenced the verdict by dominating the “past pattern” evidence and tainting the jurors’ view of the rest.

In an opinion filed April 29, the Supreme Court held that it did not need to determine whether there was an abuse of discretion regarding admitting Kingsbury’s hearsay statements, finding that any error was harmless.

“There is no reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict in this case,” reasoned Justice Anne McKeig. “Although several of Kingsbury’s out-of-court statements about the Gabby Petito incident were admitted at trial, they all described the same singular incident of past domestic abuse. But critically, there was evidence introduced at trial of numerous other instances where Fravel physically abused Kingsbury.”

“As such, Fravel’s argument that the Gabby Petitio incident constituted a majority of the ‘past pattern’ evidence is without merit,” McKeig emphasized.