Court of Appeals Digest: March 17, 2025

Civil Nonprecedential

Default

Finden Factors

In this action in which respondent alleged that appellant, without authorization, collected rent payments from tenants at an property owned by respondent, pro se appellant challenged the District Court’s grant of default judgment against him. The Court of Appeals concluded that appellant failed to show that the District Court abused its discretion in determining that he did not satisfy the four Finden factors and therefore granting respondent’s motion for default judgment. Affirmed.

A24-1356 Alliant Ventures IX, LLC v. Bebeau (Anoka County)

Domestic Relations

Child Protection; Termination of Parental Rights

Appellant-mother challenged the District Court’s termination of her parental rights, arguing that the county failed to provide reasonable efforts to assist her in addressing her chemical-dependency issue. Noting that mother’s decision not to materially comply with the case plan or meaningfully work with the county, despite its repeated efforts to assist her, hindered the county’s ability to further assist mother in addressing her chemical-dependency issue, the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court’s finding that the county provided reasonable efforts to mother was supported by the record and not clearly erroneous. Affirmed.

A24-1445 In re Welfare of Children of A.V. (Hennepin County)

Domestic Relations

Dissolution; Dismissal

Following the District Court’s judgment and decree dissolving the parties’ marriage, pro se appellant argued that the District Court abused its discretion by (1) declining to grant appellant’s motions to dismiss, (2) improperly determining custody and parenting time, (3) miscalculating child support, and (4) inequitably dividing the parties’ marital property. The Court of Appeals concluded that, even if the District Court abused its discretion by declining to address appellant’s dismissal correspondence, any error was harmless because the requests were properly denied on the merits. And the District Court did not abuse its discretion in its judgment and decree. Affirmed.

A24-0880 Yusuf v. Al Somali (Ramsey County)

Evidence

Spoliation

The District Court excluded appellants’ evidence obtained after a certain date as a spoliation sanction and then, on respondent’s motion for summary judgment, dismissed appellants’ claims related to an alleged breach of a construction contract. On appeal, appellants argued the District Court (1) abused its discretion in the spoliation and sanction rulings, and (2) erred in determining that there were no genuine issues of material fact related to damages. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in determining that appellants failed to sufficiently notify respondent and spoliated evidence by destroying the retaining walls, and the sanction was within the court’s discretion. Affirmed.

A24-1054 Crandall v. Hanson (Olmsted County)

Harassment Restraining Orders

Harassment

Pro se appellant challenged the District Court’s dismissal of her petition for a harassment restraining order against respondent neighbor, as well as the District Court’s determination that a witness was not obligated to comply with a subpoena. This was appellant’s sixth appearance as a party in an HRO appeal to this court. The Court of Appeals deferred to the District Court’s credibility determinations and found no error. Affirmed.

A24-0496 Simpson v. Soto (Ramsey County)

Public Employment

Promotions

By certiorari appeal, relator challenged respondent’s decision to remove him from a certified promotion list maintained by respondent for the position of police sergeant. Relator argued that the decision was not supported by substantial evidence and violated relator’s due-process rights. Noting that appellant admitted that he was intoxicated while on duty, as well as photographic evidence showing he was asleep next to a can of beer and with his weapon on his person while at a training event, the Court of Appeals concluded that substantial evidence in the record supported the decision and relator did not have a constitutionally protected property interest in remaining on the list. Affirmed.

A24-0645 Humphrey v. City of Minneapolis Civ. Serv. Comm’n (Minneapolis Civ. Serv. Comm’n)

Criminal Nonprecedential

Identification Evidence

Probative Value

Defendant challenged his convictions of second-degree assault, drive-by shooting, and possession of a firearm as an ineligible person, arguing that the District Court erred by allowing a police officer to testify that he recognized defendant in a surveillance video when the perpetrator’s identity was the sole issue at trial. The Court of Appeals found no error, noting that the persuasive force of the officer’s identification testimony came not from its capacity to persuade by illegitimate means but from the legitimate probative force of the evidence. Affirmed.

A24-0740 State v. Harvey (Pine County)

Murder

Self-Defense

Defendant challenged his conviction of one count of second-degree murder, four counts of attempted second-degree murder, and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm, arguing, inter alia, that the state failed to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was not acting in self-defense or defense of others. The Court of Appeals concluded that defendant’s decision to empty the eight bullets in his gun into the group of bar patrons who had the misfortune to be in the same direction as the person at whom defendant was firing supported a jury determination that defendant’s acts were not reasonable. Affirmed.

A23-1678 State v. Brown (Ramsey County)

Murder

Sufficiency of the Evidence

Defendant argued that (1) the state presented insufficient evidence at trial to support his conviction of attempted first-degree murder because the circumstances proved allowed for the reasonable inference that he only intended to cause the victim great bodily harm and (2) the District Court abused its discretion by imposing the attempted first-degree-murder sentence consecutive to the sentences for first-degree burglary and unlawful possession of a firearm. The Court of Appeals concluded that, the circumstances proved, when viewed as a whole, including defendant’s direct threats to kill the victim, support the inference that he intended to kill the victim and were inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis other than guilt. And there was no abuse of discretion in sentencing. Affirmed.

A24-0330 State v. Wilson (Hennepin County)

Threats

Sufficiency of the Evidence

Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for his conviction of threats of violence because the state did not eliminate the rational hypothesis that defendant’s comments were made out of transitory anger. The Court of Appeals concluded there was sufficient evidence to prove that defendant had at least a reckless disregard that his words or actions would cause terror, and it was not reasonable that his comments were made out of transitory anger. Affirmed.

A24-0510 State v. Harris (Ramsey County)