Justices reject convict’s appeal to vacate felony murder conviction

Listen to this article

In Brief

• The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed denial of James Green‘s petition to vacate felony murder convictions.
• Green sought relief under a 2023 Minnesota law narrowing aiding-and-abetting liability for felony murder.
• The court found sufficient evidence that Green intended to aid the killings during a 2004 St. Paul shooting.
• Justices rejected claims involving circumstantial evidence standards, witness credibility and alleged constitutional violations.

A Minnesota man convicted of felony murder sought to have his conviction vacated by a pathway created in 2023. However, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s denial of relief.

On Jan. 12, 2004, a shooting in St. Paul killed two people and seriously injured another.  Law enforcement arrested James Green and two other men, and a grand jury indicted Green on six charges including first-degree felony murder and attempted murder under aiding-and-abetting theories. Green pleaded not guilty, and the case proceeded to a two-week jury trial.

The jury found Green guilty on all six counts. The district court sentenced him to two consecutive life sentences for the first-degree felony murder counts. It also sentenced him to a concurrent 240-month sentence for attempted felony murder.

In 2023, the Minnesota Legislature amended the aiding-and-abetting statute to require proof that a defendant intended to cause death before being convicted of first-degree felony murder under an aiding-and-abetting theory. It also enacted a law allowing individuals convicted under the prior standard to challenge their felony murder convictions. The act establishes a two-step process requiring a preliminary application showing a reasonable probability of relief, followed by a petition to vacate where the petitioner must prove they did not cause the death and lacked intent to cause death.

Green filed a preliminary application in February 2024, which the district court granted. He then filed a timely petition to vacate his felony murder convictions, but the district court initially denied it before later scheduling an evidentiary hearing. After the hearing, the district court denied relief, finding that Green failed to prove that he lacked intent to aid in the killings.

Green appealed, arguing the district court abused its discretion in denying his petition to vacate by making erroneous factual findings, overweighing his fleeing the scene, misapplying the circumstantial evidence standard, and failing to properly consider the evidence.

He denied acting in concert with the shooter, having a gun with intent to kill, and returning to nudge a surviving victim. The court looked to evidence that Green helped set up the drug deal, communicated with a co-conspirator, was present during the shooting, and fled with the shooter. It also credited testimony that Green pointed a gun, later demonstrated having one, and admitted his role in checking whether the victim was dead. As these findings were supported by the record, the court determined that they were not clearly erroneous.

Green also claimed that the district court improperly considered his flight after the shooting. Green contended that the court elevated flight into a central indicator of intent to kill.  Although Green cited his prior appeal, where a flight instruction was found erroneous but harmless, the court held that flight may properly be considered when assessing intent. It concluded the district court did not improperly rely on flight or abuse its discretion.

He also maintained that the district court abused its discretion by failing to apply the appellate standard for reviewing the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence. However, the court rejected this, explaining that sufficiency review applies to direct appeals requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not to petitions to vacate.

Green also argued that there were “irregularities” that showed that the district court failed to exercise independent judgment. He points to a mistaken reference to a plea hearing and similarities between the court’s initial and final orders. The court looked at the record and found that the lower court correctly identified his jury conviction and reviewed the petition, evidence and submissions.

Additionally, Green asserted that the district court improperly relied on the jury’s 2004 verdicts rather than independently evaluating the evidence in denying his petition to vacate. He claimed that the court wrongly used the guilty verdicts and prior appellate decision to discount his credibility arguments and infer intent to kill. Citing the record, the court found that Green chose to proceed on exhibits rather than live testimony and that the district court independently weighed the evidence, treating the jury’s verdicts as only cumulative support.

Green also argued that the district court, which described his trial testimony as “self-serving,” violated his constitutional right to testify. Green contended that this impermissibly disqualified or discounted his testimony based on bias. The court noted that Green testified at his 2004 trial, and the court evaluated the transcript he submitted as evidence in his petition proceedings. It found that the district court was entitled to assess credibility after an evidentiary hearing, and there was no constitutional violation.