Minnesota Lawyer
Civil Published
Insurance
Uninsured Motorist
Appellant-insured challenged the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to respondent-insurance company on the insured’s breach-of-insurance-contract claim seeking uninsured-motorist benefits. The Court of Appeals concluded that, when an uninsured-motorist policy provision does not define “hit-and-run vehicle,” a vehicle is a “hit-and-run vehicle” if the vehicle does not stop and leaves the accident scene and the insured does not have an opportunity to obtain the unidentified driver’s information. Affirmed.
A17-0591 Russell v. Sentinel Ins. Co., Ltd. (Hennepin County)
https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctappub/2018/OPa170591-010218.pdf
Civil Unpublished
Financial Exploitation
Standing
Appellant challenged the District Court’s dismissal of his financial-exploitation claim against respondent and the District Court’s approval of respondent’s accounting for her actions taken on behalf of respondent and appellant’s mother. The Court of Appeals concluded that appellant did not have standing to assert financial exploitation on behalf of his mother, and that approval of the accounting was not an abuse of discretion. Affirmed.
A17-0696 Thulin v. Thulin (Hennepin County)
https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2018/OPa170696-010218.pdf
Landlord & Tenant
Damages
A company leased a commercial building for approximately five years before the landlords terminated the lease. Nearly six years later, the landlords sued, alleging that the tenant caused damage to the property during its tenancy. The District Court granted summary judgment to the former tenant on the ground that the landlords’ action was barred by the statute of limitations because the landlords were aware of the facts supporting their claims more than six years before they commenced this action. The Court of Appeals concluded that the former tenant was not equitably estopped from asserting a statute-of-limitations defense and that the landlords’ claims were time-barred. Affirmed.
A17-0661 Erickson v. Abby Science, Inc. (Anoka County)
https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2018/OPa170661-010218.pdf
Legal Malpractice
Causation
Appellants argued that the District Court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of respondents law firm and attorney and holding that appellants could not produce evidence to prove that but for respondents’ alleged malpractice, appellants would have obtained a more favorable result in the underlying real estate transaction. The Court of Appeals noted that, because the right of first refusal at issue was already triggered by the time appellant involved attorney in the transaction, there was nothing that attorney could have done that would have prevented the exercise of the option to purchase.
A17-0836 Zimmer v. Larson (Hennepin County)
https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2018/OPa170836-010218.pdf
Unemployment Benefits
Employment Misconduct
Relator challenged an unemployment-law judge’s determination that he was ineligible for unemployment benefits because he was discharged due to employment misconduct. The Court of Appeals concluded that the parties’ testimony and record evidence supported the ULJ’s finding that three incidents led to relator’s discharge for unprofessional conduct, and that relator was not discharged in retaliation for filing complaints about his employer. Affirmed.
A17-0437 Smalley v. TVI, Inc. (Dep’t of Emp’t & Econ. Dev.)
https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2018/OPa170437-010218.pdf
Criminal Published
Expungement
Executive Branch Records
Appellant challenged the District Court’s denial of his petition for expungement under Minn. Stat. § 609A.02, subd. 3(a)(3)-(4), of executive-branch records related to his misdemeanor and gross-misdemeanor convictions. The Court of Appeals held that, to be eligible for expungement of executive-branch records of a petty-misdemeanor or misdemeanor conviction under Minn. Stat. § 609A.02, subd. 3(a)(3), a petitioner must not have been convicted of a new crime for at least two years immediately preceding the filing of an expungement petition. Furthermore, to be eligible for expungement of executive-branch records a gross-misdemeanor conviction under Minn. Stat. § 609A.02, subd. 3(a)(4), a petitioner must not have been convicted of a new crime for at least four years immediately preceding the filing of an expungement petition. Reversed and remanded.
A17-0728, A17-0729 State v. C.W.N. (Redwood County)
https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctappub/2018/OPa170728-010218.pdf
Test Refusal
Alcohol Testing
Appellant challenged the District Court’s denial of his motion for postconviction relief and argued that the District Court erred by determining that State v. Trahan, 886 N.W.2d 216 (Minn. 2016), and State v. Thompson, 886 N.W.2d 224 (Minn. 2016), announced a new procedural rule without retroactive effect on appellant’s final convictions. The Court of Appeals held that the new rules of procedure announced in State v. Trahan and State v. Thompson do not apply retroactively on collateral review of a final conviction. Affirmed.
A17-0842, A17-0883 Johnson v. State (Ramsey County)
https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctappub/2018/OPa170842-010218.pdf
Criminal Unpublished
Prosecutorial Discretion
Separation of Powers
Respondents routinely left their five- and seven-year-old children in the care of their ten-year-old autistic child unattended for 13 hours at home while they worked the nightshift. Social services and police got involved after a driver reported nearly running over the five-year-old, who wandered into the street. The state eventually charged the two with child neglect and child endangerment. They tried to plead guilty, but the District Court would not allow it, intimating that charging the couple with those crimes constituted an abuse of prosecutorial discretion and that convictions would offend the legislature’s objective to strengthen families. The District Court therefore rejected respondents’ guilty pleas, ordered stays of adjudication, and imposed two years of probation. The state appealed, and the Court of Appeals held that the District Court’s interference in the prosecution crossed the separation-of-powers restriction on judicial activity. Reversed and remanded.
A17-0933, A17-0934 State v. Bailey (Dakota County)
https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2018/OPa170933-010218.pdf
Prosecutorial Misconduct
Waiver
On appeal from his conviction of second-degree criminal sexual conduct, appellant argued that, because the prosecutor’s statements at sentencing violated a promise under the plea agreement to accept appellant’s claim he had amnesia due to intoxication as part of his Norgaard plea, he was entitled to specific performance and resentencing. The Court of Appeals affirmed because appellant forfeited his challenge when he failed to object to the prosecutor’s statements at sentencing. It also concluded that the state did not violate the plea agreement at sentencing when the prosecutor challenged appellant’s assertion that he could not remember the offense due to intoxication. Affirmed.
A17-0270 State v. Yard (Anoka County)
https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2018/opa170270-010218.pdf
Sentencing
Statutory Amendments
Appellant challenged his 94-month sentence, arguing that he is entitled to be resentenced in accordance with the provisions of the Drug Sentencing Reform Act. Appellant also requested clarification on the effect of the mandatory minimum provision of Minn. Stat. § 609.11, subd. 4 on his sentence. The Court of Appeals held that appellant was entitled to resentencing under the amelioration doctrine, and the lack of clarity as to the effect of the mandatory minimum provision of Minn. Stat. § 609.11, subd. 4 required additional fact finding. Reversed and remanded.
A17-0227 State v. Kibble (Redwood County)
https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2018/opa170227-010218.pdf
Spreigl Evidence
Similarity
A man sneaked into a woman’s home late one night, covered the woman’s head, fondled her, and forced her to touch herself sexually. The state charged appellant with first-degree criminal sexual conduct and first-degree burglary. Over appellant’s objection at trial, the District Court admitted evidence of four of appellant’s prior interference-with-privacy convictions on the notion that they established a pattern of reckless voyeurism and would help the jury identify appellant as the offender. The Court of Appeals concluded that, because the conduct in these prior offenses was dissimilar to the conduct of the charged offense, the District Court should not have admitted them into evidence as either identity or common-scheme-or-plan exceptions to the rule against admitting evidence of other crimes. Furthermore, appellant was prejudiced by this evidence. Reversed and remanded.
A15-0330 State v. Newell (Winona County)
https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2018/OPa150330-010218.pdf
Testimony
Plain Error
Appellant sought reversal of his convictions of third-degree burglary, motor-vehicle theft, and theft and a new trial, arguing that the District Court committed plain error affecting appellant’s substantial rights by not striking the testimony of the state’s DNA analyst. Appellant argued that the DNA analyst’s repeated use of the word “matched” and the admission of her opinion that the DNA samples from the steering wheel and broken-window glass matched appellant’s DNA before providing foundation for that opinion constituted plain error that affected appellant’s substantial rights to a fair trial. The Court of Appeals concluded that appellant forfeited his arguments. Affirmed.
A17-0241 State v. Fitzgerald (Pennington County)
https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2018/OPa170241-010218.pdf
Theft by Swindle
Probable Cause
In this pretrial prosecution appeal, the state argued that the District Court erred by dismissing the theft-by-swindle and theft-by-false-representation charges against respondent for lack of probable cause. The Court of Appeals concluded that allegations that respondent, as an employee for contractor, performed work on the side and pocketed the money did not support the charges. Affirmed.
A17-1401 State v. Pohl (Kandiyohi County)
https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2018/OPa171401-010218.pdf
