Bruce D. Willis

In State v. Ali, the defendant was convicted of first-degree assault after a confrontation in a Minneapolis convenience store during which he bit off the tip of a customer's finger while resisting restraint. On appeal, he argued that the district court should have instructed the jury on the lesser-included offense of fifth-degree assault, that the prosecutor committed misconduct, and that he was entitled to a new trial because the prosecutor’s law license was on restricted status. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction, concluding that the evidence of permanent injury supported the first-degree charge so no lesser-included instruction was required, that no prosecutorial misconduct occurred, and that reversal was unwarranted without a showing of prejudice from the prosecutor’s license status.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the State of Minnesota challenging the district court's suppression of evidence seized during a no-knock search of Corey Lamont Holiday's home and vehicle pursuant to a warrant based on tips from confidential informants about drug sales. The district court had granted the suppression motion, finding insufficient probable cause due to the unverified reliability of one informant and inadequate corroboration. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the issuing magistrate had a substantial basis for finding probable cause based on the detailed information from the first informant, corroboration of Holiday's details and vehicle, the suspicious refusal during the attempted buy by the second informant, and Holiday's criminal history involving narcotics and firearms. The core reasoning emphasized a practical, common-sense totality-of-the-circumstances approach and deference to the magistrate's determination, even in marginal cases favoring warrants.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Smith, the defendant was convicted of being an ineligible person in possession of a firearm after police found a handgun during a search of his occasional residence. The district court admitted, over objection, Spreigl evidence consisting of the defendant's prior conviction for the same offense and a photograph showing him with handguns, which the prosecutor offered to prove identity and possession. The court of appeals held that this evidence was improperly admitted under Minn. R. Evid. 404(b) because it was unfairly prejudicial and lacked proper notice, requiring reversal and remand for a new trial. The court separately determined that the defendant's right to a speedy trial was not violated, as most delays were attributable to the defense, occurred for good cause, and caused no prejudice. The opinion addresses the standards for admitting prior bad acts evidence and the Barker factors for speedy trial claims.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a negligence claim brought by a father on behalf of his three-year-old son, who was injured when an empty bookcase fell on him while visiting the defendants' home with his mother. The district court granted summary judgment to the homeowners, ruling that they owed no legal duty to protect the child from the bookcase or to warn him of the danger. On appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the special standard for dangers to child entrants does not apply when the child is accompanied and supervised by a parent, and that under ordinary negligence principles of reasonable care, the homeowners had no duty in these circumstances because the risk was obvious to the supervising adult. The court also rejected the plaintiff's spoliation claim regarding the bookcase as lacking any prejudice.

torts & liabilityproperty

In State v. Shriner, the state appealed the district court's suppression of blood-test results obtained from a warrantless, nonconsensual blood draw performed on a driver suspected of impairment after a head-on collision. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the suppression order, holding that the presence of alcohol alone did not create sufficient exigent circumstances to justify the search under the Fourth Amendment and the parallel state constitutional provision. The court reasoned that a warrantless blood draw is per se unreasonable absent consent or specific evidence of urgency that precludes obtaining a warrant, and it noted the officer's testimony that there was no immediate concern about the suspect's blood-alcohol level dropping below the legal limit. As a result, charges requiring proof of a specific blood-alcohol concentration were dismissed.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over ownership of a foreclosed Minnesota home, where Omega Financial, as assignee of a conciliation-court judgment against the original owner, attempted to redeem the property after the mortgagee's redemption period expired but before the judgment was docketed. C & M Real Estate Services, assignee of the sheriff's certificate of sale, challenged the redemption and sought ejectment, arguing Omega lacked a valid lien at the time it filed its notice of intent to redeem. The district court granted summary judgment to C & M on ownership and possession. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that under Minn. Stat. § 548.09, a judgment creates no lien until docketed, so Omega had no redemption rights under Minn. Stat. § 580.24 when it filed its notice an hour and a half before docketing occurred. The court rejected arguments for substantial compliance or public-policy exceptions, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory requirements for lien priority and redemption.

propertyprocedure