Wilhelmina Wright

In State v. Barnslater, the appellant was convicted of engaging in a pattern of harassing conduct and violating an order for protection based on repeated unwanted contacts with his former romantic partner after she obtained the order, including an incident where he entered her home and a subsequent phone message relayed through a friend. The district court admitted limited evidence of the appellant's prior domestic assault convictions against the same victim as relationship evidence under Minn. Stat. § 634.20 and did not provide a cautionary jury instruction on its use. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, concluding that the evidence was properly admitted because the charged offenses involved domestic abuse as defined by statute and that any error from the missing instruction was not reversible given the evidence's limited scope, the strength of the state's case, and the final jury instructions.

criminal lawfamily law

In State v. Hannibal, the State of Minnesota appealed under Minn. R.Crim. P. 28.04 after the district court imposed a stayed probationary sentence on Benjamin Hannibal following his guilty plea to first- and second-degree assault charges stemming from an altercation with his wife. The state argued that the district court had improperly inserted itself into plea negotiations by promising probation in exchange for the plea. The appellate court first held that the state's challenge to the sentence was properly within the scope of a sentencing appeal. Upon review of the record, including the preplea conference and plea proceedings, the court found no evidence that the district court had directly and unequivocally promised a particular sentence in advance, as the court had permitted both parties to advocate for departures and made findings supporting a downward dispositional departure based on the defendant's amenability to probation. The court therefore affirmed the sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute between adjoining property owners Torchwood Properties and Judith McKinnon, in which Torchwood sued McKinnon for damages allegedly caused by the deterioration and demolition of her building that shared a wall with Torchwood's property. During trial, Torchwood learned that McKinnon had not produced certain handwritten notes in discovery and moved for a continuance or new trial, which the district court denied after finding that McKinnon was unlikely to locate the notes and that a new trial would be delayed for months. Torchwood then ceased participating in the trial by resting its case without presenting further evidence or argument, leading to a judgment for McKinnon. On appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Torchwood was estopped from claiming prejudicial error because its own voluntary withdrawal from the trial independently prejudiced its case and obscured any potential prejudice from the district court's rulings on the motions.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a landowner who found a dead black bear on his property, had it taken for taxidermy, and then had the carcass seized by state conservation officers who warned him for illegal possession under Minnesota game and fish laws. The district court granted summary judgment to the DNR officials, ruling that the state's ownership of wild animals under the game and fish laws prevented any private property interest in the carcass. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that the statutes do not bar acquisition of a property interest in the carcass of a wild animal that died naturally, as the laws regulate taking animals from the wild but leave open the possibility of private rights in naturally deceased animals once possession is taken.

propertycriminal lawenvironment

This case involved a dissenter's rights proceeding under Minnesota Statutes section 302A.473, in which Baillon Ventures, a minority shareholder in PeopleNet, challenged the price paid for its shares after the company's sale to its majority shareholder. After the district court determined the fair value of the shares and found no bad faith by either party, Baillon Ventures sought to recover over $54,000 in expenses from its privately retained appraiser as costs assessable against the corporation. The district court awarded only a small amount of other costs and denied the appraisal expenses. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that subdivision 8(a) permits assessment against the corporation only for costs of the proceeding including any court-appointed appraisers, and does not extend to expenses of a shareholder's privately retained expert, which fall outside the statute's court-directed valuation process. The decision turned on the plain language of the statute read in context with the overall framework for share-valuation proceedings.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves an appeal by the City of Woodbury from a decision of the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) approving petitions to enlarge the South Washington Watershed District and Valley Branch Watershed District to absorb territory from a dissolving watershed-management organization, while also increasing the number of managers on one district's board. The city contended that BWSR used unlawful procedure, committed legal error by allowing its authority to be restricted, and reached an arbitrary decision unsupported by substantial evidence on issues including boundaries and manager appointments. The court affirmed BWSR's order, holding that state law prevented BWSR from independently altering the proposed enlargements or boundaries once the existing organization conditioned its dissolution on approval of the petitions as submitted, and that the decisions were adequately explained and supported by the record.

environmentprocedure

In this case, a juvenile appellant challenged a district court order requiring her to submit a DNA sample under Minn. Stat. § 609.117, subd. 1(2), after she was adjudicated delinquent for a gross-misdemeanor theft offense that arose from the same circumstances as charged felony offenses. The appellant argued that the statute, as applied to a non-felony adjudication, violated her rights against unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment and Minnesota Constitution, as well as equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment and Minnesota Constitution. The court affirmed the order, concluding that the warrantless DNA collection was reasonable under a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis given the reduced privacy expectations of adjudicated delinquents and the state's interests in identification and recidivism prevention. On the equal-protection claim, the court found no evidence that the appellant was treated differently from similarly situated juveniles, as the statute applies only to those whose offenses arise from the same facts as a charged felony. The decision rested on de novo review presuming the statute's constitutionality and requiring the challenger to prove a violation beyond a reasonable doubt.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case involved a dispute over two valuable parcels of real estate owned by Crystal Lake Cemetery Association, a corporation whose stock was sold in 2005 by SCI Minnesota Funeral Services to Corinthian Enterprises and then to Washburn-McReavy Funeral Corporation. The agreements did not mention the parcels, which none of the parties realized were owned by the corporation at the time of the stock sales, and SCI later sought to reform or rescind the agreements to recover the parcels on grounds of mutual mistake. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the plaintiffs were not entitled to reformation or rescission of the stock-sale agreements. The court reasoned that the transactions transferred all corporate assets via the stock, the agreements expressly allowed removal only of specified non-operational assets prior to closing, and the facts did not support the requested equitable relief.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In Melde v. State, Dennis Melde was charged with first-degree DWI and related offenses and entered a guilty plea pursuant to an agreement for a stayed sentence on the DWI count. After reviewing the presentence report, the district court rejected the agreed-upon sentence, informed Melde of his right to withdraw the plea, and stated it would impose a 46-month prison term if he maintained the plea; Melde affirmed the plea and was sentenced accordingly. Melde later petitioned for postconviction relief seeking to withdraw the plea on grounds that the court had improperly participated in plea negotiations. The court of appeals reversed the denial of relief and remanded, holding that the district court's promise of a specific sentence after rejecting the agreement constituted impermissible injection into negotiations, rendering the plea per se invalid under Minnesota precedent and rules of criminal procedure.

criminal lawprocedure

In this medical malpractice case, Stacy Juetten sued LCA-Vision, Inc., the operator of a vision center, on vicarious liability grounds for alleged negligence by its doctors, including Dr. David Whiting, during LASIK surgery that allegedly caused her severe eye problems; she missed the 180-day statutory deadline under Minn. Stat. § 145.682 to serve expert affidavits on LCA-Vision and later amended her complaint to add Dr. Whiting directly as a defendant. The district court dismissed the claims against both defendants for failure to meet the affidavit deadline, and Juetten appealed the dismissal as to Dr. Whiting. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that amending the complaint to elevate a previously identified nonparty physician to defendant status after missing the deadline did not reset or extend the 180-day period, because the underlying cause of action remained the same and required timely expert affidavits to avoid mandatory dismissal with prejudice.

proceduretorts & liabilityhealthcare

In State v. Johnson, the appellant, convicted of misdemeanor fifth-degree assault after a felony domestic assault charge was dismissed pursuant to a plea agreement, challenged the district court's order requiring submission of a DNA sample under Minn.Stat. § 609.117, subd. 1(1), which mandates such collection when a person is convicted of any offense arising from the same circumstances as a charged felony. The appellant argued that the statute, as applied to a misdemeanant, violated Fourth Amendment and state constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as equal protection guarantees under the Fourteenth Amendment and state constitution. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the order, holding that the statute is constitutional. The court applied a totality-of-the-circumstances test balancing the state's interests in DNA collection against the minimal intrusion and reduced privacy expectations of the offender, and rejected the equal protection claim because felons and misdemeanants are not similarly situated and no disparate treatment of similarly situated misdemeanants was shown.

criminal lawcivil rights

This case involves a dispute over a parcel of property sold by Mary Mindl, who had been diagnosed with dementia, to Ricky Holland for below assessed value; after Mindl's death, her granddaughter and personal representative Sherri Nelson sued to void the sale on grounds of incapacity and undue influence. The district court granted summary judgment to Holland, ruling that Nelson lacked standing because the conservator had not challenged the transaction and that no material facts were disputed. On appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a personal representative has statutory authority under Minn. Stat. §§ 524.3-703 and 524.3-715 to assert surviving claims that the decedent could have brought, regardless of the conservator's inaction, and that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding Mindl's capacity and the presence of undue influence. The court reasoned that the personal representative's fiduciary duty to manage the estate requires allowing such claims to proceed and that the record, viewed in the light most favorable to Nelson, supports differing conclusions on the disputed issues. The matter was remanded for further proceedings.

propertyprocedure

This case arose from Betsy Lou Burkland's conviction for misdemeanor prostitution under Minnesota law following an undercover police investigation at a massage business. Burkland argued that the officer's conduct during the sting operation violated due process by engaging in outrageous government action. The court reversed the conviction, holding that the officer initiated and escalated sexual contact, including touching Burkland's breasts and allowing her to touch him, which was not necessary to obtain evidence of the offense. The decision rested on the principle that such police overinvolvement offends fundamental fairness protected by the due process clauses of the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, as established in prior Minnesota precedent. The court did not address the sufficiency of the evidence.

criminal lawcivil rights

In this child support modification case, the father sought to reduce his existing obligation after the mother began receiving monthly trust income and based on a finding that she was voluntarily unemployed, allowing imputation of potential income under Minn. Stat. § 518A.32. The district court affirmed the magistrate's calculation of the mother's gross income as including both actual trust income and imputed potential income, found a substantial change in circumstances, and reduced the father's monthly obligation from $2,600 to $1,896. On appeal, the court affirmed that direct evidence of actual income does not preclude imputing potential income and that gross income can encompass both, but reversed in part because the lower court did not fully apply subdivision 5's caretaker factors when assessing whether the mother was voluntarily unemployed. The case was remanded to reevaluate voluntary unemployment and whether the existing obligation remains unreasonable and unfair.

family law

In this case, Jonathon Goodman sued Best Buy in state court for disability discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act after his employment was terminated, along with a federal FMLA claim; the case was removed to federal court, where the FMLA claim was dismissed on summary judgment and the MHRA claim was dismissed without prejudice. Goodman refiled the MHRA claim in state court three months later, but the state district court dismissed it as time-barred, interpreting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) as providing only a 30-day window to refile after federal dismissal. The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed, holding that § 1367(d) suspends the running of the state statute of limitations during the period the claim is pending in federal court plus 30 days after dismissal. The court based its decision on the plain meaning of the statutory term "tolled," which it interpreted as stopping the limitations clock rather than merely extending it by a fixed period or annulling it. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

civil rightsprocedurelabor & employment

The case involved appellant Dean Mertins challenging a district court order that denied reinstatement of his commercial fish and game licenses, which the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources had seized after finding probable cause that he had wantonly wasted nearly 20,000 pounds of buffalo fish left unattended in a holding pond. Mertins argued that his commercial fishing license was a protected property interest and that Minn. Stat. § 97A.420 violated his procedural due process rights under the Minnesota and U.S. Constitutions by limiting post-seizure review to probable cause and delaying a hearing. The court held that the statute provided adequate due process protections for the property interest in the licenses, that constitutional challenges could be raised in the proceeding, and that the district court did not err in finding probable cause based on evidence that Mertins failed to check on the fish for two months. It therefore affirmed the denial of reinstatement.

criminal lawpropertyprocedure

This case involved a high school student, N.Y.B., who challenged her one-year expulsion by the Anoka-Hennepin school board after she assaulted another student during a cafeteria fight and was insubordinate toward staff. N.Y.B. argued that the board's decision was arbitrary, unsupported by substantial evidence, and violated her procedural due process rights because she waived an evidentiary hearing based on certain understandings about the process. The court remanded the expulsion decision to the school board, holding that its written explanation failed to include the controlling facts required by Minn. Stat. § 121A.47, subd. 13, such as the reasons for the one-year length or consideration of mitigating factors. The court rejected the due process claim, however, because N.Y.B. did not show prejudice from the procedures used.

civil rightsprocedure

In State v. Meyer, the defendant appealed his conviction for gross-misdemeanor domestic assault arising from an altercation with his girlfriend at a casino parking ramp, arguing that the district court erred by admitting evidence of three prior incidents of domestic abuse under Minn. Stat. § 634.20 and by failing to provide jury instructions on the limited use of that evidence. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the relationship evidence because it was relevant and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. The court further concluded that the absence of cautionary instructions did not constitute reversible plain error, as the conviction was supported by other strong evidence including surveillance video, the victim's contemporaneous statement to police, and eyewitness testimony from security personnel.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a law firm, Dorsey & Whitney, seeking to enforce two attorney liens against clients ABCO Research and Andrew Grossman for legal services in patent enforcement, licensing, and prosecution under a contingency fee agreement. The district court granted the liens and entered judgments for approximately $586,312 and $126,236, but the clients appealed, arguing the relationship was a joint venture exempt from the attorney-lien statute, disputing contract terms on deductions and scope, and seeking to raise a malpractice claim. The appellate court held that the arrangement was not a joint venture and that the statute applied, upheld the contract interpretations and exclusion of the malpractice claim from the summary proceeding, but ruled that the statute authorizes liens on specific property rather than personal judgments against the clients. It affirmed the lien amounts as modified to clarify they attach to interests in the Hasel patent proceeds, and remanded for identification of the property subject to the second lien.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned whether respondent Edgar Hughes, who pleaded guilty in 2004 to aggravated robbery and received an upward durational departure sentence plus restitution, could obtain postconviction relief applying the rule of Blakely v. Washington retroactively to his sentence. The district court granted relief, finding that because the restitution amount was set after Blakely was decided, the case remained pending on direct review and eligible for retroactive application. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Blakely does not apply retroactively. The court reasoned that finality for retroactivity purposes is fixed by the entry of the judgment of conviction and sentence on March 19, 2004, even though the precise restitution amount was determined later; the special statutory procedure for challenging restitution does not extend the date of finality, which is essential to retroactivity doctrine.

criminal lawprocedure