Turnage v. State

708 N.W.2d 535 (2006)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Vang was involved with D’s brother Quantez and Lautusia Ball in the renting of an apartment. Yang, the apartment owner, rented an apartment to 4 people with a $1000 security deposit. Two people left, and Yang gave them about $550 back. It was alleged he also promised to give them another $100 back. The parties got into an argument about the $100 and Vang, who was also present, tried to intervene. The police were called. Twenty-two days after the rental dispute, Vang’s body was found in a field. He died from the loss of blood from multiple injuries and had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.182 at the time of death. There was no evidence of drugs in Vang’s system. Because the cold weather could have prevented the decomposition of Vang’s body, the pathologist could not determine the time of death from the body. People were arrested, and DNA evidence showed up on one of their cars. Two parties eventually pleaded guilty to intentional second-degree murder and received sentences of 339 and 299 months respectively. Both testified for the state at D’s trial but gave differing accounts of what had happened. Apparently, after the initial argument the parties lured Vang into their car and then killed him. At trial, D denied killing Vang, stating he was not present when it happened. D claimed he was doing his laundry at a laundromat and hanging out with friends. An inmate who was in the Ramsey County Courthouse with D testified that D said he wished it would keep snowing because of a body in a field. Another testified that he was housed with D at the Ramsey County Workhouse in March 2004 when D explained that he and his brother had murdered a “Chinese dude,” and that the body was beside a highway under snow. While housed at the Workhouse D made several phone calls to Quantez and Elbert that were tape recorded by the facility. The trial court admitted these recordings at trial. D objected but was convicted and now appeals. D argues that there was no foundation to establish that the tape-recorded copies of the tapes of his telephone calls were the same as the originals.