Minnesota Lawyer
Criminal
Complaints
Appeals
The question presented in this case was whether the District Court properly granted defendant’s motion to dismiss second-degree criminal sexual conduct charges for lack of probable cause. The Court of Appeals did not reach the merits of the dismissal, holding instead that the State could not appeal the dismissal.
The Supreme Court held that (1) when, as here, the District Court’s dismissal of a criminal complaint for lack of probable cause was not premised solely on a factual determination, the State can appeal that order under Minn. R. Crim. P. 28.04, subd. 1(1); and (2) State v. Dixon, 981 N.W.2d 387 (Minn. 2022), which was decided after oral argument in this case, was relevant to whether the District Court erroneously dismissed counts one and two for lack of probable cause. Reversed and remanded.
A22-0606 State v. Gray (Court of Appeals)
Controlled Substance Crimes
Sufficiency of the Evidence
A jury found defendant guilty of two marijuana related fifth-degree controlled substance offenses. One conviction was based on defendant’s alleged possession of approximately 3 pounds of plant material that the State claimed was marijuana. The second conviction was based on defendant’s alleged possession with intent to sell one or more vaporizer cartridges filled with an amber colored liquid mixture containing tetrahydrocannabinols. Defendant argued that the State’s evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdicts because of a 2019 amendment to the definition of marijuana in Minn. Stat. § 152.01, subd. 9, which explicitly excluded “hemp.” Hemp is in turn elsewhere defined as having a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis. The 2019 amendment went into effect 10 days after defendant was charged by criminal complaint but more than 7 months before his case went to trial. According to defendant, the 2019 amendment governed his case through the application of the common law amelioration doctrine. His interpretation of the amended statute required the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that both the plant material and the liquid mixture in the vaporizer cartridges contained delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol in a concentration greater than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis. The Court of Appeals agreed with defendant that the 2019 definition of marijuana applied to this case and reversed his conviction for possession of the plant material. However, the court appeals upheld his conviction for possessing with intent to sell the vaporizer cartridges filled with the liquid mixture containing tetrahydrocannabinols. The court reasoned that the possession of tetrahydrocannabinols in any amount is illegal under Minnesota’s definition of Schedule I controlled substances.
The Supreme Court held that (1) a defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the State’s evidence that is grounded in a statutory-interpretation-based amelioration doctrine argument is not forfeited on appeal even though the issue was not raised in the District Court; (2) a statutory amendment mitigates punishment under the amelioration doctrine when a change in the law either reduces the penalty for the criminal conduct or redefines the criminal conduct in a manner benefitting the defendant, including the decriminalization of the conduct—the 2019 amendment to exclude hemp from the definition of marijuana in Minn. Stat. § 152.01, subd. 9, decriminalized the possession of hemp, meaning a defendant convicted of marijuana offenses may obtain relief under the amelioration doctrine; (3) because § 152.01, subd. 9, explicitly excludes “hemp” from the definition of “marijuana” and these substances are distinguished based on their delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of a substance exceeds 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis to obtain a conviction for a fifth-degree controlled substance crime under § 152.025, subds. 1(1) and 2(1); and (4) the evidence was insufficient to support defendant’s convictions for fifth-degree controlled substance offenses because the State offered inadequate evidence that the delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of the plant material and liquid mixture in vaporizer cartridges found in defendant’s possession exceeded 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
A20-1254 State v. Loveless (Court of Appeals)
Sentencing
Restitution
This case presented the question of whether, under Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 3(a), the State must prove that a defendant’s income, resources, and obligations allow them to pay restitution when a defendant challenges a restitution order issued in a criminal case. After defendant pleaded guilty to second degree unintentional felony murder, the District Court ordered him, as part of his sentence, to pay $7,500 in restitution for the victim’s funeral expenses. Defendant challenged the restitution order, arguing that he was unable to pay the amount ordered. After holding an evidentiary hearing, the District Court concluded that defendant had “the ability to pay restitution someday” and denied his motion to relieve his restitution obligation. Defendant appealed, arguing that § 611A.045, subd. 3(a), requires the State to prove his ability to pay restitution based on his income, resources, and obligations. The Court of Appeals concluded that the statute imposes no such burden on the State and affirmed the District Court’s restitution order.
The Supreme Court held that (1) § 611A.045, subd. 3(a), imposes no burden on the State to prove that a defendant’s income, resources, and obligations allow them to pay restitution when a defendant challenges a restitution order. Affirmed.
A21-1270 State v. Cloutier (Court of Appeals)
