Judge wants Beccue murder trial to go in January

A jury trial for a St. Peter man charged with two counts of first-degree murder is scheduled to begin in Jan. 14, and the presiding judge told prosecutors and Alexander Beccue’s attorney he would like to see the trial held at that time.
During a pretrial hearing on Tuesday, Fayette County Resident Circuit Judge Don Sheafor told Fayette County State’s Attorney Joshua Morrison, Assistant State’s Attorney Brenda Mathis and Ed Deters, Beccue’s attorney, “I would really like it to go in January.”
Beccue has been in custody on $1-million bond since being arrested in August 2017 on charges of first-degree murder, vehicle theft and possession of a weapon by a felon.
The two counts of first-degree murder allege that Beccue shot Jason K. Smith in the head at a Ramsey residence on Aug. 11, 2017.
“I think we’ve given you time on this … a lot of time,” Sheafor said.
Deters said that he and Beccue are “weighing the terms of the trial. The range of sentencing is serious and I want to feel I’m 100-percent sure I’m ready for trial.”
Deters said that the use of experts at trial is “under consideration,” and that with media present for Tuesday’s pretrial, he did not want to discuss potential defenses in open court.
“I don’t think it’s unusual, at least at this point, the amount of time we’re taking,” Deters said.
Morrison told Sheafor that Deters had just told him that he planned to file a motion asking for the suppression of statements made by Beccue, and the parties agreed to hold a pretrial hearing on that motion on Jan. 9, five days before the scheduled start of the trial.
Deters said that he would be having more discussions with the state’s attorney’s office on whether both sides are ready for trial.
“My client wants to get it resolved, too, but he wants to do the best he can (at trial),” Deters said.
In the motion that Deters filed upon completion of Tuesday’s hearing, he claims that after his arrest, Beccue gave oral and videotaped statements to state police, and that the prosecution “has indicated that it intends to introduce against the defendant (at trial).”
In his motion, Deters claims that the statements “were obtained as a result of psychological and mental coercion,” and that the state police personnel interviewing Beccue made “direct and indirect promises and threats directed against (Beccue).”
He claims that the statements “were obtained as a result of promises (by the state police personnel) of leniency, immunity and/or inferences that in exchange for statements and self-incrimination actions, the number and severity of possible charges against (Beccue) would be limited, and that such statements were, therefore, involuntary.”
Deters’ motion claims that the state police special agent and sergeant “knew the defendant was under the influence of illicit substances, and that he was incapable of a meaningful waiver of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.”
The motion claims that “because of the conduct of (the state police personnel), all communications, confessions, statements, admissions or tests by the defendant were involuntarily given in violation of his constitutional rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.”