Supreme Court Digest: April 29, 2026

Listen to this article

Civil

Attorney Discipline

Disbarment

The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed a petition for disciplinary action against respondent Bradley J. Haddy, alleging several acts of professional misconduct, including misappropriation of client funds, failure to communicate with clients, failure to abide by client decisions, and failure to cooperate with the Director’s investigation. The appointed referee recommended disbarment, and the director supported the recommendation.

The Supreme Court held that (1) the referee’s findings and conclusions that the attorney committed disciplinary violations were not clearly erroneous; (2) disbarment is the appropriate discipline for an attorney who misappropriated client funds, engaged in a pattern of client neglect, and initially failed to cooperate with the disciplinary investigations. Disbarred.

A24-1439 In re Haddy (Original Jurisdiction)

Criminal

Murder

Sufficiency of the Evidence

After a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of first-degree domestic abuse murder, first-degree premeditated murder, second-degree intentional murder, and second-degree felony murder for the death his former girlfriend and the mother of his children. On direct appeal, defendant asserted several trial errors. He also argued for a new trial based on the alleged errors’ cumulative effect. Finally, defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove the requisite intent for three of the four murder charges and asks us to vacate those guilty verdicts on that basis; he did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence for second-degree felony murder.

The Supreme Court held that (1) any error in the admission of multiple hearsay statements under Minn. R. Evid. 807 regarding one incident of domestic abuse was harmless; (2) the District Court did not abuse its discretion by admitting expert testimony on commonalities in domestic violence relationships; (3) the District Court did not commit plain error by admitting the medical examiner’s opinion that the cause of death was homicidal violence; (4) any misconduct that the prosecutor committed by asking questions eliciting expert testimony on sexual abuse in domestic violence relationships did not prejudice the defendant’s substantial rights; (5) any misconduct that the prosecutor committed by misstating the proof-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights; (6) the alleged cumulative errors did not deny the defendant a fair trial; and (7) the evidence at trial was sufficient to prove the defendant’s extreme indifference to human life, premeditation, and intent to cause death. Affirmed.

A25-0420 State v. Fravel (Winona County)