By Patrick Tepoorten

“Martin had a tender heart. He loved the elderly and he loved kids,” said Martin Carlson’s mother Jennifer Berry, last Wednesday. She also said that Carlson, 25, of Center City, was getting his life together, had graduated from college with a degree in computer science and was looking for a job when he was shot and killed the morning of July 22, 2006.  

After the verdict was announced, Jason Slattengren and Tory Mogensen (right) embraced outside the courtroom.  Slattengren remarked afterword that he was relieved to have the trial complete.

Last Thursday evening, after a four-day trial, Craig Steven Fleming, 48, of Lindstrom, was found guilty of second degree murder for that crime.

It was a victory of sorts for the defense. Fleming was on trial for first degree murder, second degree murder, and two counts of second degree assault, and was found “not guilty” of all but the second degree murder charge.

Heading into the trial, only general details were known: Just before 2 a.m. the morning of July 22, at 30495 Park Street in Lindstrom, following an argument, Fleming put a gun to Carlson’s head and pulled the trigger.

The trial filled in many, but not all, of the blanks.

The state’s case, argued by prosecutor Fred Fink and assistant county attorney Jessica Stott, focused on Fleming’s behavior before, at, and after the moment he shot Carlson, in an effort to prove the premeditation and intent associated with first degree murder.

It used the testimony of two eye-witnesses to the shooting, Jason Slattengren and Tory Mogensen, and a third witness that arrived shortly after, Leah McLafferty, to establish Fleming’s frame of mind.

Using the testimony of the three, the state painted a picture of a Fleming bent on killing Carlson. Mogensen testified that Fleming and girlfriend Lona Linc stopped by the house minutes before Carlson arrived and stated  he was looking for Carlson and would “hunt him down like a dog.” Minutes later, Carlson and Slattengren arrived and saw Fleming and Linc sitting in a truck nearby Mogensen’s residence. Fleming was told to either come inside or leave by Carlson.

Marty Carlson was the victim

At the moment of the shooting, Slattengren and Mogensen testified that Fleming got up and pulled the .45 Ruger during a verbal altercation with Carlson, pushed past Slattengren, who was trying to defuse the confrontation, and put the gun to Carlson’s head. They stated that Carlson was badgering Fleming as this was happening, calling him a “bully” and telling him to “go ahead and shoot.”

As well, Fleming was reported to have “strutted” on the porch following the shooting, and said “No more Marty” on multiple occasions.

Defense attorney Gregory J. Rebeau, through questioning, attempted to cast doubt on Fleming’s alleged statements, pointing out that statements by the three witnesses implicating pre-meditation were made to investigators well after the crime was committed.

In this regard he had most success with Mogensen, whose memory of Fleming’s “like a dog” statement was only recalled a year after the shooting, when Mogensen was in treatment for substance abuse. Likewise, Rebeau established that statements regarding “strutting” and the words “No more Marty,” also came not the night of the crime, but later.

The state also called a large number of law enforcement and Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) crime scene analysts, who painted a picture of the crime scene, the investigation, and the results.

Of local law enforcement personnel, Rebeau repeatedly asked if the garage at 30495 Park Street, two vehicles in the driveway, McLafferty’s car, or the three state’s witnesses, were ever searched. The answer, invariably, was “no.”

On Wednesday, Rebeau brought the only two witnesses for the defense; Denise Fleming, sister of the accused, and Linc.

After the shooting, Fleming went to his sister’s house, where he gave her the shirt he had been wearing, instructed her to call police, and laid down in the driveway awaiting officers’ arrival.

Due to a hearsay objection, Denise Fleming’s testimony was very short and she was not allowed to testify to any conversations between herself and her brother about the shooting. Linc, however, testified at length.

Linc created a very different set of circumstances leading up to the shooting. She testified that she and Fleming were preparing to leave after being treated rudely by Carlson, who was questioning Fleming as to why he was there, and why he was hanging out in front of the house.

She said that, when she and Fleming got up to leave, Mogensen, Slattengren, and Carlson also got up, and Slattengren physically prevented Fleming from leaving the residence. Also, she stated that Carlson was acting strangely at that time, fumbling around his chest in a position described as like “hugging himself” before he sat up straight and reached behind his back.

That was when the gun came out, according to Linc, and Fleming approached Carlson, now seated in a striped loveseat. She told Rebeau she was scared and that she and Fleming were in danger.

But Linc too remembered some details of the critical moments after the fact, and Fink also pointed out testimony by Linc that contradicted statements made to investigators and a Grand Jury. For instance, she told investigators that Fleming was angry just before the shooting, but testified that he was calm. She told a Grand Jury that she had seen Fleming pull a gun from his waist, but testified she did not see him pull the weapon.

But if Linc’s testimony didn’t conclusively establish the “other side” of the story, it did serve the defense in a very significant way.

Thursday morning brought closing arguments, and Fink made a dramatic show for the prosecution. He used a toy gun to demonstrate how the shooting took place,  noting how Fleming held the firearm sideways like “television gangsters,” and sometimes pounded the gun on the podium for effect.

Fink said the wound suffered by Carlson could be seen as evidence of nothing but a “cold-blooded execution,” and tied his case together with significant details.

• Fleming had two opportunities to leave the situation;

• He remarked shortly before killing Carlson that he would “hunt him down like a dog;”

• Fleming laid in wait, brought a loaded firearm into Mogensen’s house, “racked” the slide to insure a live round was seated in the chamber;

• Fleming pushed Slattengren out of the way, went straight for Carlson, placed the gun in a place where he could not miss, and pulled the trigger

• Asked “Who’s next” immediately following the shooting, acted proud on the porch and said “No more Marty.”

In conclusion, Fink told jurors the evidence showed Fleming prepared and planned to kill Carlson, who “did not deserve to be executed, and indeed he was executed by that defendant sitting at that table.”

Rebeau argued in defense of Fleming, and introduced for the first time the possibility that self-defense was the reason Fleming shot Carlson. According to state statute, attorneys for the defense are not allowed to broach a self-defense argument unless given approval from the bench. Following Linc’s testimony, the defense was allowed by 10th District Court Judge to use it.

Because of that, what had been a cut and dried issue of first or second degree murder, became a lot murkier.

Rebeau reminded the jury that he had instructed them his client had shot Carlson at the beginning of the trial, and that the important question was “why?”

He described Carlson as “amped up” on methamphetamine that morning and looking for a confrontation. He used a statement by Slattengren describing Carlson as a “big man in a little man’s body,” to portray Carlson as aggressive.

Rebeau also highlighted three separate occasions Fleming could have shot Carlson had that been his intent: inside Rocky J’s Bar, Chisago City, earlier that morning, outside the bar in the parking lot when Fleming, Linc, Carlson, and Slattengren had a short conversation, and outside Mogensen’s house when Carlson went outside to tell Fleming and Linc to either come in or leave.

Using those moments, Rebeau said the state’s allegation that Fleming “stalked” Carlson “defied common sense.”

“If he had a plan he would have done it at Rocky J’s,” or outside Mogensen’s when there would have been no witnesses.

Rebeau also argued that the crime scene was not processed properly by law enforcement. The garage, the three cars, the witnesses, none were searched. He said that police officers “inexperienced” with murders “didn’t do an adequate job,” with the scene, and allowed witnesses access to the scene more than once in the time frame immediately following the shooting.

He also placed Mogensen by the garage and cars, and in and out of the house, creating a “window of opportunity for the crime scene to be sanitized.”

Rebeau said it was Carlson, high on methamphetamine and “running his mouth,” that “ratcheted up” the situation. He said Fleming likely felt concerned, surrounded by three friends, one of whom was a “weight lifter” (Slattengren).

“It was three against one,” said Rebeau, who put Slattengren the “weight lifter” at the door and Carlson fumbling with something behind his back.

All this was enough to create “legitimate fear” in Fleming and Linc, said Rebeau, who said “Mr. Fleming did what he needed to do,” and said there was no plan. “If they had let Mr. Fleming leave this would have never happened.”

In a brief rebuttal, Fink wondered aloud if, had Fleming not felt in danger until he was near the door, why was the ejected live round in the middle of the room, away from the door. As to shortcomings with the investigation, Fink said “So what. It doesn’t matter in this case. This isn’t a who-done-it.”

It took the jury just over five hours to reach the verdict of guilty only to second degree intentional homicide.

Following the verdict, the reaction was one of dissatisfaction from both sides. Lorri Ann Miller, grandmother to Carlson’s 10-year-old son, said she was “shocked.”

“I can’t believe it,” added Miller, who was hoping for a first degree murder conviction.

In a phone interview on Monday, Denise Fleming continued to insist her brother is innocent. “He shouldn’t be sitting in jail,” she said, “It was self-defense. He was framed.”

For Carlson’s mother, Jennifer Berry, the trial, the verdict, doesn’t change the fact that her son is gone. “I miss him so much. He always told me that he loved me, after we would talk. Those were the last words he said to me before that terrible night, ‘Mom, I love you.’” She added that his memory continues on in the people he came in contact with. “Martin touched so many peoples lives, it was unbelievable.”

Fleming’s sentencing is scheduled for April 22, at 8:30 a.m.