Murder trial finally set to begin

After more than two years, the murder trial in the case a young woman killed under a Steele County overpass will begin next week.

Before then, however, District Court Judge Joseph Bueltel has a stack of defense motions to rule on, from cops in the courtroom to autopsy photos.

Jason Lee Horner, 41, has been charged with one count each of second-degree intentional, unpremeditated murder, and possession of a firearm after conviction for a crime of violence.

He is accused of shooting Sabrina Lee Schnoor, 25, after arranging to meet her May 29, 2023, in Owatonna.

Schnoor’s friends became worried when they didn’t hear from her the next day. They found her body the night of May 30 under the Interstate 35 overpass near the Steele County Administration Building on Florence Avenue.

An autopsy indicated she’d been shot in the mouth; according to the medical examiner, the bullet cut through her spinal cord, killing her. Schnoor had also sustained a skull fracture and brain bleed before being shot.

Horner, who appeared alongside his defense counsel at the Oct. 24 hearing, has been in custody since his arrest June 3, 2023.

He spoke only once, answering “yes, sir,” when asked if he was Jason Horner. Jury selection will begin Monday.

Autopsy photos

Steve Bergeson, an assistant state public defender, moved on Horner’s behalf that the number of photographs taken by the medical examiner’s office be limited – and be submitted to the jury in black and white, not color.

In the motion, Bergeson wrote that “the photographs taken of the deceased are particularly offensive and inflammatory,” and the use of “numerous (and color) photographs before the jury will serve solely to inflame the passions and prejudices of the jury.”

He further asked that the judge require the prosecution “to prove at a (pretrial) hearing that each (photo) is relevant for evidentiary or illustrative purposes … and outweighs their inflammatory nature.”

Bueltel asked Assistant Attorney General Mary Russell if she was planning to have the exhibits available in both color and black and white.

“I don’t want to get into a situation where if I rule it’s too gory …,” Bueltel said. “I’d like to have both available so I can see the reasons” why a black and white photo may be more appropriate.

Russell worried about “altering the photo – I don’t want to say tampering with the evidence – but potentially changing how people are viewing it.”

She said she’d never seen a similar request.

“Well, they’re asking for it, and I think we have to be prepared for that potential,” Bueltel said. “I don’t want to be in the middle of this trial and have to figure out how to get a black and white photo from a color photo.”

Russell continued to lobby for the judge to make his determination during the trial, saying the use of color photos will help jurors understand injuries; Bueltel refused.

“First, show (the defense) what you want to show,” he said, “and see if they’re going to object.”

Courtroom decorum, spectators

Bergeson also moved for an order prohibiting spectators and/or witnesses from displays that reference the victim, violence against women “or which otherwise might elicit an emotive response from jurors.”

Specifically, he wrote, “Horner requests an order prohibiting law enforcement personnel from wearing uniforms unless they are scheduled to testify on that specific day.”

Uniforms or other displays, Bergeson said, “will significantly interfere with Mr. Horner’s right to a fair trial by injecting undue emotion … while potentially preventing jurors from dispassionately determining whether the state has proven the elements” of the charges.

Members of the jury understand bailiffs and officers testifying, he told Bueltel, “but if there are spectators in law enforcement uniforms, the message is quite clear. (The jurors) are not dumb. (The officers) are not here to support the defense …”

The judge seemed surprised.

“Have you ever experienced a bunch of cops showing up in their uniforms and watching a trial?” Bueltel asked. “I mean, I’ve never even heard of that.”

Yes, Bergeson said, but Russell clarified his answer.

“I believe the case he’s referencing involved multiple officers as victims,” she said, “so I think there was a stronger connection for law enforcement to appear on behalf of their colleagues.”

Bueltel had previously ruled that displays about Schnoor or violence against women would not be allowed in the courthouse or courtroom, “so this is a different wrinkle with this motion, and I’m not going to decide that fully at this point.”