Minnesota Lawyer
Civil Nonprecedential
Civil Commitment
SDP; Sufficiency of the Evidence
On appeal from his commitment as a sexually dangerous person (SDP) and a sexual psychopathic personality (SPP), appellant argued that the record did not support the District Court’s determination that he met the criteria for commitment as either an SDP or an SPP. Noting that appellant committed multiple offenses in adulthood—and was accused of additional offenses which were not prosecuted—despite attending numerous treatment centers and disciplinary placements in his adolescence, and that he did not complete any sex-offender treatment while incarcerated, the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court adequately analyzed the applicable statutory factors. Affirmed.
A22-1414 In re Civil Commitment of White (Cass County)
Common-Interest Communities
Nuisances
A tree in a common-interest community grew to partially obstruct respondents’ view of Lake Minnetonka. As a result, litigation ensued between respondents and appellant association, which maintains the tree. The District Court concluded that association did not breach any covenants or duties to its common interest community members, but that the tree was a private nuisance that needed to be cut down. On appeal, respondent asserted that, because it did not breach any covenants or duties to its members, this conclusion was legally inconsistent. In addition, respondent appealed the District Court’s vacation of fines that respondent levied against appellants for violating its Good Neighbor Policy. In a related appeal, respondents asserted that the entire Good Neighbor Policy was invalid, and association breached its covenants and duties to them as members of the common interest community. The Court of Appeals concluded that the record supported the District Court’s findings that association breached neither the covenants in its governing documents nor breached the duties owed to its members. The Court also agreed with the District Court’s determination that, although association’s Good Neighbor Policy was properly enacted under its bylaws, the fines were improperly levied against respondents under that policy because association did not provide sufficient notice to respondents of their specific violations. But association was compliant with all its governing documents in its maintenance of the tree, and thus did not act wrongfully, and thus the tree was not a private nuisance. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
A22-0995 Sirota v. Villas of St. Albans Bay Assoc. (Hennepin County)
Domestic Relations
Child Custody; Modification
Appellant-mother challenged the District Court’s order granting respondent-father’s motion to modify the physical custody of the parties’ minor child from joint physical custody to his sole physical custody. Mother argued that the District Court erred by, inter alia, granting the custody-modification motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing. The Court of Appeals concluded that mother did not waive an evidentiary hearing and that the District Court therefore erred when it granted father’s motion without it. Reversed and remanded.
A22-0976 Francis v. Tonche (In re Custody of X.W.F.) (Steele County)
Domestic Relations
Child Custody; Paternity
Respondent-mother is the mother of the child at issue in these proceedings. While testing indicated that appellant was the child’s biological father, the District Court adjudicated respondent-father as the child’s legal father and awarded mother and respondent-father joint legal and joint physical custody. In this appeal, appellant challenged the District Court’s adjudication of respondent-father as the child’s legal father and the award of joint physical and joint legal custody to respondent-father. Appellant argued that the District Court erroneously determined that respondent-father was entitled to a presumption of paternity under the Minnesota Parentage Act and abused its discretion in awarding custody and parenting time. In a cross-appeal, respondent-father contended that the District Court erred by ordering the amendment of the child’s birth certificate to add appellant’s name and birth date. Respondent-father also argued that the District Court erred when it granted appellant reasonable visitation time with the child. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court did not err in adjudicating respondent-father as the child’s legal father, but did err in ordering the amendment of the child’s birth certificate and by including appellant in the custody and parenting-time order. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
A22-0399 Kangas v. Kangas (In re M.V.K.) (Dakota County)
Domestic Relations
Dissolution; Child Custody
In this post-dissolution appeal, appellant-father challenged the custody and parenting-time schedule for the parties’ child, the property division, the spousal maintenance award, the child-support award, the denial of his motion for a new trial or amended findings, and the District Court’s failures to resolve some tax issues and to make findings favorable to appellant in some areas. Respondent-mother has filed motions to strike items in appellant’s appendix and for need-based attorney fees on appeal. The Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion in the custody and parenting-time arrangements, in the child-support award, in the decisions on tax matters, or in the denial of appellant’s motion for a new trial or amended findings. However, the Court saw a need for further findings as to property division and spousal maintenance. Because the items in appellant’s appendix were not part of the record before the District Court, the Court granted respondent’s motion to strike them; and concluded that, in light of these determinations, respondent was entitled to partial attorney fees on appeal. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
A21-1519 Versabeau v. Mekonnen (Hennepin County)
Domestic Relations
Dissolution; Contempt
Pro se appellant challenged the District Court’s order holding him in constructive civil contempt for refusing to sign a purchase agreement as directed by the District Court following the dissolution of appellant’s marriage to respondent. Appellant argued that the District Court lacked authority to order him to sign the purchase agreement because he had appealed the judgment and decree finalizing the dissolution and the appeal was pending. He also contended that the District Court erred in determining that his refusal to sign the purchase agreement was constructive civil contempt. The Court of Appeals concluded that the pending appeal did not suspend the District Court’s authority to enforce the dissolution order, and the District Court did not abuse its discretion in ruling appellant in constructive civil contempt. Affirmed.
A22-0943 Lorbiecke v. Lorbiecke (Wright County)
Municipalities
Tobacco-Shop Licenses
In this certiorari appeal, relator challenged respondent city’s decision to revoke a tobacco-shop license held by his business. Noting that the record showed the city offered the business a hearing before an ALJ, which would have allowed the business to present evidence and witnesses and cross-examine the city’s witnesses, the Court of Appeals concluded that the city did not deny the business procedural due process, the penalty ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague, and the business admitted to the conduct underlying the license revocation. Affirmed.
Public Employment
Vicarious Liability
Appellant sued respondent school district for the actions of appellant’s fifth and sixth grade teacher and the teacher’s husband. Appellant alleged that teacher and husband sexually assaulted him when he was 16 years old and that the school district was negligent and vicariously liable for teacher’s conduct. The school district moved for summary judgment, which the District Court granted. The Court of Appeals concluded that the school district was not subject to liability under the Minnesota State Tort Claims Act, given that teacher was acting outside the scope of his employment when he sexually assaulted appellant, and because teacher’s actions were not foreseeable to the school district. Affirmed.
A22-0945 Doe v. Special School Dist. No. 6 (Dakota County)
Trusts
Trustees
In this trust dispute, appellant-beneficiaries challenged the District Court’s order regarding their petition for redress of alleged breaches of trust and for removal of the trustee. They raised several arguments, including that the District Court failed to provide an adequate remedy for respondent-trustee’s breach of the duty of loyalty. Appellants also argued that the District Court erred when it concluded that appellants failed to establish any other actionable breach of trust. Finally, appellants contended that the District Court abused its discretion by declining to remove respondent as the trustee and by awarding respondent trustee compensation and attorneys’ fees. The Court of Appeals concluded that, although the trustee’s decision to buy two rental properties from the trust was a breach of her duty of loyalty because the trustee paid less than fair market value for the properties, the District Court correctly concluded that the trustee only breached the duty of loyalty by selling the trust properties to herself at too low a price, the District Court was not required to unwind the property sales. Affirmed.
A22-0767 In re Ranallo Trust (Hennepin County)
Trusts
Undue Influence
In this probate dispute, appellant assigned error to the District Court’s determination that his grandmother’s decision to remove him as a beneficiary of a trust did not result from undue influence, as well as its denial of his request for equitable relief and attorney fees. By notice of related appeal, the deceased’s son-in-law, respondent, asserted that the District Court erroneously found that he breached a fiduciary duty to the decedent. The Court of Appeals concluded that the record supported the District Court’s determinations regarding undue influence, equitable relief, and attorney fees. But it disagreed with the District Court’s determination that respondent breached a fiduciary duty. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
A22-0996 In re Estate of Andrews (Crow Wing County)
Unions
Collective Bargaining Unit
In this certiorari appeal, relator-union challenged an order issued by respondent-agency on a petition for determination of an appropriate collective bargaining unit. Noting that it was within agency’s discretion to weigh evidence and judge the credulity of witness testimony, the Court of Appeals concluded that agency did not err by determining that relator’s proposed bargaining unit was not an appropriate collective bargaining unit and that respondent-county’s alternative proposal was an appropriate collective bargaining unit. Affirmed.
Criminal Precedential
Exoneration
Filing Fees
Petitioner challenged the District Court’s denial of his application for in forma pauperis (IFP) status to bring a civil action seeking an order declaring him eligible for compensation based on exoneration under Minn. Stat. § 590.11. The Court of Appeals held that a petition for an order declaring eligibility for compensation based on exoneration is a postconviction proceeding for which no filing fee or order granting in forma pauperis status is required. Reversed and remanded.
A22-1123 Aery v. State (Beltrami County)
Criminal Nonprecedential
Evidence
Suppression Hearings
The State challenged the District Court’s decision to not receive a police report as evidence at a suppression hearing because the state did not produce the officer who wrote the report to testify. The State argued that the District Court’s decision was error in the wake of State v. Pauli, 979 N.W.2d 39, 42 (Minn. 2022), a recent Minnesota Supreme Court decision, which held that the Minnesota Rules of Evidence do not apply in full force at suppression hearings. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court had clear discretion to determine the reliability of evidence at suppression hearings and the state interpreted Pauli too broadly. Affirmed.
A22-1589 State v. Feekes-Benedict (Clay County)
Fleeing Police
Sufficiency of the Evidence
Defendant challenged his conviction for fleeing a police officer in a motor vehicle, arguing that (1) the evidence was insufficient to prove that he was the driver, (2) the District Court violated his right against self-incrimination by ordering him to reveal a tattoo, and (3) the prosecutor committed misconduct by shifting the burden of proof. The Court of Appeals concluded that a lieutenant’s testimony identifying defendant as the driver was sufficient to support the jury finding. Furthermore, defendant’s tattoo was not testimonial and the prosecutor did not shift the burden of proof. Affirmed.
A22-0761 State v. Schally (Washington County)
Hearsay
Dying Declaration
Defendant challenged his convictions for intentional second-degree murder and unintentional second-degree felony murder. He contended that the District Court erred by (1) admitting a statement from the victim identifying him under the dying declaration hearsay exception, and (2) convicting him of a lesser-included offense. Defendant argued that the state did not establish that the victim had given up all hope of survival when he made the statement. Noting that the victim stated twice that he was going to die, suffered a fatal gunshot wound to the shoulder, and died within about five hours of being shot, the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the victim’s statement under the dying-declaration hearsay exception because the victim believed he would not survive his injuries. However, the District Court improperly convicted defendant of a lesser-included offense. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
A22-0937 State v. Hosley (Ramsey County)
Judges
Impartiality
Juvenile-appellant argued that the District Court judge who denied his motion for a stay of adjudication was disqualified as he used extra-record information to reach that disposition. Noting that information about the victim’s injuries was easily confirmed during the disposition hearing and made part of the record, the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court judge did not conduct an independent investigation. Affirmed.
A22-1313 In re Welfare of M.B.W. (Scott County)
Kidnapping
Jurisdiction
Defendant challenged his kidnapping conviction, arguing that the District Court should not have exercised jurisdiction over the charge and that his guilty plea was inaccurate because the underlying factual basis did not address venue. Defendant also challenged his sentence, arguing that the District Court erred by including two out-of-state convictions in his criminal-history score. The Court of Appeals held that the State of Minnesota, and not any particular judicial district, is the relevant “territory” when determining whether a District Court has jurisdiction over criminal charges and a valid guilty plea results in waiver of any venue challenge. However, recalculation of his criminal-history score was required. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
A22-0632 State v. Paulson (Anoka County)
Murder
Jury Instructions
Defendant argued that her conviction for second-degree murder must be reversed because, inter alia, the District Court’s supplemental jury instructions materially misstated the law of self-defense. The Court of Appeals determined that the District Court materially misstated the law of self-defense by defining “imminent” as “immediately” and by failing to tailor the instruction to the unique circumstances of the case. Reversed.
A22-0611 State v. Clark (Hennepin County)
Murder
Sufficiency of the Evidence
Defendant sought reversal of his conviction for second-degree intentional murder, arguing that his conviction must be reversed because the circumstances proved were consistent with a rational hypothesis other than guilt. The Court of Appeals concluded that, while defendant’s arguments offered alternative explanations associated with evidence elicited at trial, these arguments were insufficient to overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidence under the applicable standard of review, and that the circumstances proved were consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Affirmed.
A22-0260 State v. Wiseman (Hennepin County)
Probation Revocation
Condition Violations
Defendant challenged the revocation of his probation following his third set of probation violations, arguing that the District Court abused its discretion by determining his violations were inexcusable and by failing to weigh the policies favoring probation against the need for confinement. Defendant also contended that his sentence was illegal because it is based on an incorrect criminal-history score. The Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion in revocation of probation, noting that the District Court’s determinations that defendant’s admitted probation violations were inexcusable and that continuing him on probation would depreciate the seriousness of his violations were sound. Defendant’s sentencing challenge was not properly before the court. Affirmed.
A22-1078 State v. Wilson (Blue Earth County)
Relationship Evidence
Probative Value
Defendant argued that he was entitled to a new trial because (1) the District Court abused its discretion by admitting relationship evidence pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 634.20, and (2) the prosecutor committed misconduct by eliciting prejudicial testimony from witnesses and failing to prepare its witnesses. The Court of Appeals concluded that the record supported the District Court’s finding that the probative value of defendant’s prior acts of criminal sexual conduct against another daughter was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Furthermore, the prosecutor did not commit misconduct. Affirmed.
A22-0744 State v. Wharton (Kandiyohi County)
Right to Counsel
Waiver
Defendant challenged his conviction of domestic assault, arguing that he was entitled to a new trial because the District Court did not obtain a sufficient waiver of counsel before permitting appellant to discharge his attorney and proceed pro se. The Court of Appeals concluded that defendant’s familiarity with the court system, his ability to consult with counsel before he discharged his public defender, and the extensive discussions the District Court had with defendant on the record demonstrated that defendant’s waiver was knowing and intelligent. Affirmed.
A22-0990 State v. Bellaphant (Ramsey County)
Right to Speedy Trial
Request for Relief
Defendant challenged his conviction for domestic assault, arguing that (1) his right to a speedy disposition under the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act (UMDDA) was violated, (2) he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and (3) the District Court abused its discretion by giving an implicit-bias jury instruction over the objection of both parties. The Court of Appeals concluded that because the District Court had not received defendant’s request and the commissioner’s certificate as set forth in UMDDA, it did not lose jurisdiction over the case. Affirmed.
A22-0763 State v. Dwyer (Rice County)
Sentencing
Downward Departures
Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of first-degree driving while impaired. At sentencing, he requested a downward dispositional departure from the presumptive sentencing range on the ground that he was particularly amenable to probation. The District Court imposed a prison sentence within the presumptive range. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court did not err by imposing a presumptive sentence. Affirmed.
A22-1209 State v. Anderson (Dakota County)
Sentencing
Presumptive Range
Defendant challenged his sentence for aiding and abetting second-degree murder, arguing that the District Court abused its discretion by imposing a prison sentence at the top of the negotiated plea range but still within the presumptive sentence under the sentencing guidelines. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence that was within both the plea range and the presumptive sentencing guidelines range. Affirmed.
A22-0920 State v. Miller (Scott County)
Threats
Jury Instructions
Defendant challenged his conviction for reckless threats of violence, arguing that he was entitled to a new trial because the District Court did not properly instruct the jury as to the elements of the offense. Noting that it was is a correct statement of the law that a threat of murder is a threat to kill another human being, the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court’s instruction fairly and adequately explained the law and did not materially misstate the law. Affirmed.
A22-1007 State v. Labeau (Stearns County)
