State of Minnesota v. Ibn Marchone Abdullah

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A23-0750

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Ibn Marchone Abdullah,
Appellant.

Filed September 3, 2024
Affirmed
Johnson, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-CR-21-23832

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Mary F. Moriarty, Hennepin County Attorney, Matthew D. Hough, Assistant County
Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Suzanne M. Senecal-Hill,
Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and Halbrooks,

Judge. ∗

SYLLABUS

If the state introduces a defendant’s confession into evidence at a criminal trial,

Minnesota Statutes section 634.03 (2020) requires the state to corroborate the confession

by presenting evidence independent of the confession that reasonably tends to prove that

Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant
∗

to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
the specific crime charged in the complaint actually occurred. If the defendant is charged

with homicide, the state must present evidence independent of the defendant’s confession

that reasonably tends to prove that someone, but not necessarily the defendant, caused the

death of another person in a criminal manner.

OPINION

JOHNSON, Judge

A Hennepin County jury found Ibn Marchone Abdullah guilty of two counts of

second-degree intentional murder based on evidence that he shot and killed his father and

his sister. The state’s evidence included testimony that Abdullah had confessed to the

killings. On appeal, Abdullah argues that the state did not corroborate his confession by

introducing other evidence that reasonably tends to prove that he committed the charged

crimes. We conclude that the state satisfied its obligation to corroborate Abdullah’s

confession by presenting evidence independent of the confession that reasonably tends to

prove that the specific crimes charged in the complaint actually occurred. Therefore, we

affirm.

FACTS

In 2021, Abdullah owned a duplex in the city of Robbinsdale. He lived in one unit

and rented the other unit to his father, Marchone Abdullah, and his sister, Crystal Abdullah.

In the summer of 2021, Abdullah told his half-brother, T.J., that he was angry with

their father. Abdullah wanted Marchone and Crystal to move out of their unit and

mentioned the possibility of evicting them. Abdullah expressed frustration with their

leaving their possessions outside and with a “rent situation.” He also told T.J. that he

2
believed that Marchone and Crystal were planning to arrange for some other person or

persons to sexually assault him. Abdullah told T.J. that he was “gonna kill the old man.”

On December 26, 2021, Abdullah visited T.J.’s home and told him that he “had two

bodies on him.” Abdullah specifically referred to Marchone and Crystal. While pointing

a finger at his own head, Abdullah told T.J. that he had killed them with a “dome shot.”

Abdullah said that the bodies likely were “stinking” after a few days. Abdullah asked T.J.

to help him dispose of the bodies.

T.J. immediately called his brother, C.J., to tell him about his conversation with

Abdullah. C.J. drove to Marchone’s and Crystal’s home to check on them. Upon arriving,

he noticed that the front door was ajar. C.J. entered the unit and saw the dead bodies of

Marchone and Crystal in the living room, in upright positions in recliner chairs.

C.J. stepped outside and called 911. When the first police officer arrived and

entered the residence, he smelled an odor consistent with decomposing bodies and

immediately saw two dead bodies in the living room. When the officer looked closely at

the bodies, he saw that both had gunshot wounds to the head. Officers also found a semi-

automatic handgun and four spent cartridge casings in the home. The serial number of the

handgun matched the serial number of a handgun that Abdullah had purchased, and

Abdullah’s fingerprint was found on the handgun. A forensic scientist determined that the

handgun had fired all four of the cartridge casings. A medical examiner later performed

autopsies and determined that Marchone and Crystal died of gunshot wounds to the head.

The state charged Abdullah with two counts of second-degree intentional murder,

in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.19, subd. 1(1) (2020). The case was tried to a jury on

3
three days in January 2023. The state called 17 witnesses, including T.J., who testified

about the statements that Abdullah had made to him in the summer of 2021 and on

December 26, 2021. The jury found Abdullah guilty on both counts. The district court

imposed consecutive sentences of 261 months of imprisonment. Abdullah appeals.

ISSUE

Did the state present evidence independent of Abdullah’s confession that reasonably

tends to prove that the specific crimes charged in the complaint actually occurred, as

required by Minnesota Statutes section 634.03?

ANALYSIS

Abdullah makes only one argument on appeal: that the state did not satisfy its

obligation to corroborate his confession to his brother, T.J., in the manner required by

Minnesota Statutes section 634.03.

A.

The statute on which Abdullah relies provides, “A confession of the defendant shall

not be sufficient to warrant conviction without evidence that the offense charged has been

committed . . . .” Minn. Stat. § 634.03 (2020). This statute, which has remained “largely

unchanged” since its enactment by the territorial legislature in 1851, codifies the common-

law corpus delicti rule. State v. Holl, 966 N.W.2d 803, 807, 809 (Minn. 2021). The term

corpus delicti is Latin for “the body of the crime.” Id. at 809.

In Holl, the supreme court reviewed the origins of the corpus delicti rule, which

sprang from an English case in which a man was convicted of murder based on his

confession and was executed before the supposed victim of the murder later reappeared,

4
alive. Id. (citing Perry’s Case, 14 How. St. Tr. 1312 (Eng. 1661)). The supreme court

summarized the common-law corpus delicti rule by stating that it “generally requires the

State to ‘introduce evidence independent of an extrajudicial confession to prove that the

confessed crime actually occurred.’” Id. (quoting Allen v. Commonwealth, 752 S.E.2d 856,

859 (Va. 2014)). The supreme court interpreted “the plain language” of section 634.03 to

“require[] the State to present evidence independent of a confession that reasonably tends

to prove that the specific crime charged in the complaint actually occurred in order to

sustain the defendant’s conviction.” Id. at 814. 1

The supreme court also stated in Holl that section 634.03 “does not require that each

element of the offense charged be individually corroborated.” Id. (quotation omitted).

Prior supreme court opinions demonstrate that the state must corroborate the elements of a

crime that constitute the corpus delicti of the crime. The concept of corpus delicti is well

explained in a respected treatise that the supreme court has cited in discussing the corpus

delicti rule and section 634.03:

To establish guilt in a criminal case, the prosecution must
ordinarily show that (a) the injury or harm constituting the
crime occurred; (b) the injury or harm was caused in a criminal
manner; and (c) the defendant was the person who inflicted the

1
The supreme court acknowledged in Holl that some of its prior opinions had
implicitly allowed the state to corroborate a defendant’s confession by introducing
evidence of the trustworthiness of the confession. 966 N.W.2d at 810-11. But the Holl
court clarified that the trustworthiness concept is “absent from the plain language of”
section 634.03 and that “[t]o incorporate a trustworthiness standard into the statutory
language of Minn. Stat. § 634.03 would require us to add words into the statute that do not
exist.” Id. at 811-12.

5
 injury or harm.[2] Wigmore maintains that the “orthodox” and
“more natural meaning” of corpus delicti includes only the first
of these—“the fact of the specific loss or injury sustained”—
and does not include proof that the injury was occasioned by
anyone’s criminal agency. Some courts have agreed.

Most courts, however, define corpus delicti as involving
both (a) and (b). Under this definition, the corroborating
evidence must tend to show that the harm or injury existed and
was the result of criminal activity. The prosecution need not,
however, present independent evidence that the defendant was
the guilty party.

1 Charles T. McCormick, McCormick on Evidence § 146, at 194 (Robert P. Mosteller ed.,

8th ed. Supp. 2022) (citations omitted); see also Holl, 966 N.W.2d at 807 n.6, 810 (citing

1 McCormick on Evidence § 145 (Robert P. Mosteller ed., 8th ed. 2020)); State v. Lalli,

338 N.W.2d 419, 420 (Minn. 1983) (citing McCormick on Evidence § 158 (2d ed. 1972));

State v. Hill, ____ N.W.3d ____, ____, 2024 WL 3490357, at *4 (Minn. App. July 16,

2024), petition for rev. filed (Minn. Aug. 15, 2024).

The supreme court’s prior opinions reflect the latter view described by McCormick,

that the corpus delicti of a crime generally consists of two components: first, a particular

injury or harm that the criminal law seeks to prevent or punish and, second, the criminal

nature of the cause of the injury or harm. For example, in State v. Grear, 13 N.W. 140

(Minn. 1882), in which the appellant was convicted of assault, the supreme court stated,

2
Professor Wigmore used somewhat different language by describing the first
concept as “the occurrence of the specific kind of injury or loss (as, in homicide, a person
deceased; in arson, a house burnt; in larceny, property missing),” and the second as
“somebody’s criminality (in contrast, e.g., to accident) as the source of the loss.” 7 John
Henry Wigmore, Evidence § 2072, at 524 (Chadbourn ed., 1978). Similarly, Judge
Learned Hand described the first concept as “the injury against whose occurrence the law
is directed.” Daeche v. United States, 250 F. 566, 571 (2d Cir. 1918).

6
“Evidence that the offence charged has been committed by some person is all that is

required” by the corpus delicti statute. Id. at 140. The first component of the corpus delicti

in that case was established by evidence that the victim had been shot and injured. Id. The

second component of the corpus delicti was established because “there certainly was

evidence showing that the woman mentioned had been shot . . . by somebody” and there

was “nothing to raise any suspicion that she had shot herself, nor that she had been shot by

accident.” Id.

As previously stated, the specific crime with which Abdullah was charged and of

which he was convicted is second-degree intentional murder. See Minn. Stat. § 609.19,

subd. 1(1). The supreme court has applied the corpus delicti statute in a murder case. In

State v. Laliyer, 4 Minn. 368, 4 Gil. 277 (1860), the supreme court described the corpus

delicti of murder as follows:

To prove then that the offence charged . . . has been committed,
is to demonstrate . . . that the particular murder . . . has been
committed by some one . . . . [A]pplying the [statute] to this
indictment, it requires that evidence be produced, outside of
the Defendant’s confessions, sufficient to induce belief, not
only that [the defendant’s wife] is dead, but that her death was
caused by the criminal agency of another. . . . The offence is
separable from the guilty agent; and although a [defendant]
may be convicted on his own voluntary declarations as to his
agency, or participation in a crime, . . . it shall first be
satisfactorily proved by other evidence, that the crime has
actually been committed.

Id. at 377-78, 4 Gil. at 284-85 (emphasis added); see also State v. Voges, 266 N.W. 265,

266 (Minn. 1936) (stating that corpus delicti of homicide is “the death of a human being

and that a criminal agency produced it”).

7
 In light of this caselaw, if the specific crime charged in the complaint is homicide,

the state must present evidence independent of the defendant’s confession that reasonably

tends to prove that someone caused the death of another person in a criminal manner. See

Holl, 966 N.W.2d at 814; Voges, 266 N.W. at 266; Laliyer, 4 Minn. at 377-78, 4 Gil. at

284-85. In a case of homicide, the state is not required to corroborate a defendant’s

confession by presenting evidence independent of the confession that reasonably tends to

prove that the defendant was the person who caused the victim’s death.

B.

As stated above, Abdullah argues that the state did not satisfy its obligation under

section 634.03. We apply a de novo standard of review to the question whether the state

has presented evidence independent of a defendant’s confession that reasonably tends to

prove that the specific crime charged in the complaint actually occurred. Holl, 966 N.W.2d

at 814.

Abdullah repeatedly states in his brief that the state did not present evidence

independent of his confession that reasonably tends to prove “that he shot his father and

sister.” (Emphasis added.) He asserts that there is neither direct evidence nor

circumstantial evidence that he did so. He summarizes his argument by stating, “In short,

the circumstantial evidence shows that someone shot Mr. Abdullah’s father and sister, not

that Mr. Abdullah shot them.” (Emphasis added.)

Abdullah misapprehends the applicable law. As stated above, section 634.03

requires the state to present evidence independent of the defendant’s confession that

reasonably tends to prove the corpus delicti of the charged offense. See Holl, 966 N.W.2d

8
at 814; Hill, 2024 WL 3490357, at *4-5. If the defendant is charged with homicide, the

state must present evidence independent of the defendant’s confession that reasonably

tends to prove that someone caused the death of another person in a criminal manner, but

the state is not required to present evidence independent of the defendant’s confession that

reasonably tends to prove that the defendant was the person who did so. See Voges, 266

N.W. at 266; Laliyer, 4 Minn. at 377-78, 4 Gil. at 284-85. In effect, Abdullah has conceded

that the state presented the independent evidence necessary to satisfy section 634.03.

Our analysis of the state’s independent evidence confirms that it reasonably tends

to prove that someone caused the death of two persons in a criminal manner. When the

first police officer arrived at Marchone’s and Crystal’s home, he saw two persons in the

living room with fatal gunshot wounds to their heads. Police officers also found a semi-

automatic handgun and four spent cartridge casings nearby. Forensic testing showed that

the handgun had fired all four of the cartridge casings. The medical examiner who

performed the autopsies determined that each victim’s cause of death was one or more

gunshot wounds to the head, that Marchone had three gunshot wounds from a gun that was

fired from a distance of between a few inches to a few feet, and that Crystal had one gunshot

wound from a gun that was fired from an undetermined distance. The medical examiner

also determined that the “manner of death,” for public-health purposes, was that “one

individual caused an injury to another individual that resulted in death.” There is no

evidence in the record to suggest that Marchone and Crystal shot themselves or that they

were shot by accident. See Grear, 13 N.W. at 140-41.

9
 Thus, the state’s evidence that is independent of Abdullah’s confession reasonably

tends to prove that someone caused the deaths of Marchone and Crystal in a criminal

manner.

DECISION

The state presented evidence independent of Abdullah’s confession that reasonably

tends to prove that the specific crime charged in the complaint actually occurred, as

required by Minnesota Statutes section 634.03.

Affirmed.

10