Background
Randy W. Erickson was convicted by a Bayfield County jury of second-degree intentional homicide for fatally shooting Mike Kinney on May 8, 2020. Erickson and his daughter went to Kinney’s home after an earlier confrontation between Kinney and Erickson’s wife. The men had a lengthy history of disputes involving access to the Ericksons’ gravel-pit business, and Erickson held a harassment restraining order against Kinney.
Erickson claimed he shot Kinney in self-defense after Kinney attacked him with a shovel. But an audio recording captured the encounter and included Erickson repeatedly threatening to shoot or kill Kinney, while Kinney told Erickson to leave his property and put down the gun. The jury also heard evidence of disputes between the men in January and April 2020. After twice reporting deadlock, the jury received Wisconsin’s supplemental agreement instruction and returned a guilty verdict about two hours later.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed. It held that the circuit court properly admitted evidence of the January and April 2020 incidents. The evidence permissibly provided context for the parties’ acrimonious relationship and was relevant to Erickson’s motive and intent, as well as to rebut his self-defense theory. Its possible propensity implication did not make it inadmissible where it was relevant for those other purposes.
The court also held that the circuit court acted within its discretion in refusing to declare a mistrial after the jury’s deadlock notes and in giving WIS JI—CRIMINAL 520. Wisconsin precedent approves that instruction for deadlocked juries and holds it is not facially coercive. The subsequent verdict did not itself establish coercion, particularly because the jury deliberated for another two hours.
Finally, the court declined discretionary reversal based on the provocation instruction. Erickson cited no authority requiring a castle-doctrine modification where a provocation instruction is warranted. The court also concluded that the doctrine was a poor fit because Kinney had an easement over the property where the shooting occurred and the confrontation arose after Erickson and others went to Kinney’s home.
Key Takeaways
- Prior disputes may be admitted to provide context and show motive or intent, even if they also suggest a propensity inference.
- A deadlock instruction is not coercive merely because the jury reaches a verdict after receiving it.
- Discretionary reversal for an allegedly incomplete jury instruction remains reserved for exceptional cases.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the broad discretion Wisconsin trial courts have in admitting relationship-history evidence in violent-crime cases and in responding to a deadlocked jury. It also limits the reach of a castle-doctrine argument where the defendant’s own conduct may have provoked the confrontation and the alleged intruder had a property right to be present.