Justia Minnesota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

An employee who had been working remotely due to a pandemic-related order was instructed by her employer to return to the office and begin a new hybrid work schedule. On the day she was to return, she packed her work equipment, which she had been using at home, and attempted to load it into her car earlier than her usual departure time so she could set up her workstation before her normal shift began. During this process, she fell and injured her back. She reported the injury, received medical care, and subsequently sought workers’ compensation benefits for her injury.A workers’ compensation judge initially heard her claim and determined that her injury was not compensable. The judge reasoned that the injury occurred during her commute and did not fall under the special-errand exception, relying on precedent from the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA) in a prior case. The judge found that transporting the equipment was a routine part of her return-to-work commute and thus not a special errand.The employee appealed to the WCCA, which reversed the compensation judge’s decision. The WCCA found that, unlike the prior case, her employer had implicitly required her to return the work equipment before her shift began, and there was no evidence of backup equipment at the office. This, the WCCA determined, qualified her trip as a special errand.The Supreme Court of Minnesota reviewed the case and affirmed the WCCA’s decision. The court held that the WCCA did not err in making a factual finding that the employer’s directive included an implied request to return equipment before her shift, nor was this finding manifestly contrary to the evidence. The court also held that, as a matter of law, the employee’s injury was compensable under the special-errand exception to the general rule barring compensation for injuries sustained during a commute. View "Ludwig vs. Dakota County, Self-Insured by SFM Risk Solutions" on Justia Law

Police investigating a homicide in Castle Rock Township, Minnesota, recovered the victim’s body in a culvert. They suspected multiple perpetrators and learned from an informant that the suspects owned cell phones. Officers applied for a geofence warrant authorizing Google to provide location data for all devices within a defined area around the crime scene during the period from the victim’s disappearance to discovery of his body. The process involved obtaining anonymized device IDs, then narrowing the search to particular device IDs for expanded location data, and finally seeking subscriber information from Google. This data connected the appellant to the crime, and he later confessed in a police interview.The District Court denied the appellant’s motion to suppress evidence, finding the geofence warrant constitutional, and a jury convicted him of second-degree murder. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the warrant was not an unconstitutional general warrant, was supported by probable cause, and was sufficiently particular. The court of appeals did not address whether the good-faith exception or harmless error applied.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the constitutionality of the geofence warrant under the Minnesota Constitution. It held that cell phone users have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their location data stored by Google, so accessing this data constitutes a search requiring a warrant. The court concluded that geofence warrants are not categorically prohibited as general warrants and that this warrant was supported by probable cause. However, it held that the warrant lacked sufficient particularity because it allowed law enforcement discretion to determine which device IDs to subject to expanded searches without judicial oversight. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and remanded for consideration of whether the good-faith exception or harmless error applies. View "State of Minnesota vs. Contreras-Sanchez" on Justia Law

The case concerns Cedric Lamont Berry, who was convicted for his role in the kidnapping and murder of Monique Baugh and the attempted murder of her boyfriend, J.M-M., on December 31, 2019. Berry and his accomplice were indicted on multiple charges, including first-degree premeditated murder, attempted murder, kidnapping, and felony murder. The prosecution presented extensive circumstantial evidence, including surveillance footage, cell-site location data, DNA, and physical evidence, linking Berry to the crimes. A jury found Berry guilty on all counts, and he was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of release.Following the convictions, Berry appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court, where his appellate counsel challenged the admissibility of cell-site location information and raised other procedural arguments. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed his convictions. Berry then filed a petition for postconviction relief in Hennepin County District Court, acting pro se. He argued that his appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising additional claims, including alleged procedural errors during his initial court appearances, insufficiency of evidence regarding his mental state as an aider and abettor, issues with jury instructions, and trial counsel’s handling of potentially prejudicial conduct by the prosecution.The Hennepin County District Court summarily denied Berry’s postconviction petition without an evidentiary hearing, concluding that even if Berry’s factual allegations were true, they did not entitle him to relief under the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel established in Strickland v. Washington. On appeal, the Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion and the underlying ineffective assistance claims de novo. The Supreme Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion and affirmed, finding that Berry’s petition did not allege facts that, if proven, would establish ineffective assistance of counsel as a matter of law. View "Berry vs. State of Minnesota" on Justia Law

In May 2022, the appellant shot and killed a man at a St. Paul light-rail station. Surveillance video captured the incident, showing an argument followed by the appellant loading a gun and shooting the victim multiple times at close range. The appellant was arrested and charged with second-degree intentional murder, later indicted for first-degree premeditated murder and ineligible possession of a firearm.The case was first heard in the Ramsey County District Court. The appellant requested substitute counsel several times, citing conflicts of interest and alleged ineffective assistance, but the court denied these requests after inquiring into the claims and finding no exceptional circumstances. The appellant also sought to represent himself and, after a waiver colloquy, the court found his waiver of counsel to be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. The appellant represented himself briefly at trial before requesting that standby counsel resume representation. The jury found him guilty on all counts, and the court sentenced him to life imprisonment without the possibility of release for first-degree murder.On direct appeal, the Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed whether the district court erred in denying substitute counsel, whether the waiver of counsel was constitutionally valid, and considered various other claims raised by the appellant. The court held that the district court conducted a sufficient inquiry into the allegations underlying the requests for substitute counsel and properly denied them, as no exceptional circumstances were shown. The court also concluded the appellant’s waiver of counsel was valid. Additional claims raised by the appellant were found to lack merit. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences imposed by the district court. View "State of Minnesota vs. Tillman" on Justia Law

The case concerns a criminal defendant who was convicted of first-degree murder, felony drive-by shooting, and being an ineligible person in possession of a firearm. The charges stemmed from a 2021 shooting outside a bar in Saint Paul, Minnesota, where one victim died and another survived. Police investigation connected the defendant to the crime through evidence including gunshot residue on his vehicle and ammunition found in his apartment. The defendant was initially successful in having certain firearm and ammunition evidence excluded, but later, as part of his trial strategy, he sought to admit that same evidence. The district court clarified on the record the scope of the evidence to be admitted and required the defendant’s personal consent before proceeding.After a jury trial, the defendant was acquitted of first-degree premeditated murder but convicted of first-degree murder while committing a drive-by shooting and related charges. The district court imposed sentences, including life with the possibility of release after 30 years. The Supreme Court of Minnesota affirmed the convictions on direct appeal, rejecting arguments about probable cause, the validity of the search warrant, evidentiary rulings, and confrontation rights.The defendant subsequently filed a pro se postconviction petition, alleging that the district court judge was not impartial due to purported advocacy for the prosecution and conducting independent research. The postconviction court summarily denied the petition without a hearing, finding the claims meritless and procedurally barred.The Supreme Court of Minnesota reviewed the summary denial for abuse of discretion and considered the legal question of judicial impartiality de novo. It held that the defendant failed to demonstrate that the judge was partial or that an objective observer would question the judge’s impartiality. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of postconviction relief. View "Glover vs. State of Minnesota" on Justia Law

The case involves an individual who was indicted in Anoka County for first-degree felony murder under an aiding-and-abetting theory related to the shooting death of Karl Henderson. At the time of the offense, Minnesota law permitted a conviction for first-degree felony murder under this theory without proof that the defendant intended to cause the death. The evidence presented at trial showed that the accused helped plan a robbery, instructed her brother to bring a gun, and participated in the events leading to Henderson’s death. The jury convicted her of aiding and abetting first-degree murder during the commission of aggravated robbery, and she was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of release.Following her conviction, the defendant pursued postconviction relief in the Anoka County District Court, which was denied. The Supreme Court of Minnesota affirmed the conviction on direct appeal and postconviction review. Subsequently, the legislature amended the felony murder law, creating a process for individuals convicted under the previous statute to seek relief if they could allege and eventually prove that they neither caused nor intentionally aided in causing a death. The appellant submitted a preliminary application for relief under the new statute, but the district court summarily denied it, reasoning that, based on the facts, there was not a reasonable probability she was entitled to relief.The Supreme Court of Minnesota reviewed the case and held that a district court may summarily deny a preliminary application for relief under the Act only for the specific reasons listed in the statute. It further clarified that applicants meet the “reasonable probability” requirement by alleging facts that could lead a rational person to believe they might succeed at an evidentiary hearing. The court also held that credibility determinations cannot be made without first holding such a hearing. The district court’s summary denial was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "State of Minnesota vs. Zielinski" on Justia Law

In 2000, Scot Perry Christian was indicted on multiple charges, including two counts of first-degree premeditated murder and two counts of first-degree felony murder, related to the shooting deaths of two individuals during an armed robbery at a motel in Austin, Minnesota. At trial, eyewitnesses testified that Christian and his accomplice, both armed, entered the motel room, demanded money, and, when one of the victims called for help, Christian instructed his accomplice to shoot. Both men then fired, resulting in two deaths and one injury. Physical evidence further implicated Christian. The jury found Christian guilty of all charges, and the district court entered convictions on the felony murder counts, imposing consecutive life sentences.Christian appealed his convictions to the Minnesota Supreme Court, raising issues including the denial of his right to self-representation and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court affirmed his convictions. Years later, after the Minnesota Legislature amended the felony murder statutes and created a process for certain individuals convicted under an aiding-and-abetting theory to seek relief, Christian submitted a preliminary application for relief under the new law. He asserted that he neither caused nor intentionally aided in causing the deaths, but presented no new facts.The Mower County District Court denied Christian’s preliminary application, finding there was not a reasonable probability that he was entitled to relief under the statute, given the trial evidence and Christian’s own concession on appeal that he told his accomplice to shoot. The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion and held that the district court acted within its discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Christian’s admissions and the trial record demonstrated he intentionally aided his accomplice with the intent to cause death, rendering him ineligible for relief under the 2023 legislation. View "State of Minnesota vs. Christian" on Justia Law

After a multi-car collision in August 2021, law enforcement found a man unconscious behind the wheel of his vehicle. An officer administered Narcan to revive him, and paramedics transported him to the hospital. During his treatment, the man told paramedics and later his girlfriend that he had used heroin. His girlfriend relayed this information to a nurse. Following the incident, a district court judge issued a warrant allowing law enforcement to obtain the man’s medical records and ambulance run sheets for the day of the accident. The records included statements made to both the paramedics and his girlfriend.After he was charged with driving under the influence of a controlled substance, he moved to suppress the medical records and ambulance reports, arguing that disclosure violated statutory medical privilege and that the warrant was overbroad. The District Court for Hennepin County suppressed some records but ruled that neither the physician-patient privilege nor the nurse-patient privilege protected his statements to the paramedics or his girlfriend, nor his girlfriend’s statements. The court also found the warrant sufficiently particular. After a jury convicted him, he appealed.The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that paramedics are excluded from the physician-patient privilege, the privilege did not cover statements made to his girlfriend, and the search warrant was not overbroad.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and clarified that the physician-patient privilege can extend to paramedics only if they act under the direction of a treating physician, but found the accused did not show such a relationship existed here. The court held that statements to a girlfriend who is not a necessary or customary participant in treatment are not privileged, and that nonprivileged information does not become privileged simply by inclusion in medical records. The court also held that the privilege does not bar issuing a particularized warrant for medical records in these circumstances. The decision of the court of appeals was affirmed. View "State of Minnesota vs. Smeby" on Justia Law

A residential property in Anoka County was foreclosed upon by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA), which then obtained a sheriff’s certificate of sale. Creative Real Estate, Inc. (Creative), a junior creditor with a mechanic’s lien for improvements on the property, filed a Notice of Intention to Redeem. Creative satisfied its mechanic’s lien and, the following day, tendered the redemption money to the county sheriff, who issued a Certificate of Redemption in Creative’s name. Creative then conveyed the property to a third party. The sheriff delivered the redemption funds to MHFA’s counsel, but neither MHFA nor its attorney returned the funds to Creative or the sheriff. Instead, the funds were eventually deposited into the attorney’s trust account, and MHFA challenged the validity of Creative’s redemption in district court.The Anoka County District Court granted summary judgment for MHFA, finding that MHFA did not waive its right to contest the redemption because it had not actively solicited or knowingly waived any irregularities, and because Creative’s mechanic’s lien was no longer valid at the time of redemption. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed, agreeing that MHFA had not accepted or appropriated the redemption funds such that it would be deemed to have waived its right to contest the redemption.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that a holder of a sheriff’s certificate of sale waives the right to contest a junior creditor’s redemption by accepting the redemption money. Acceptance occurs when the certificate holder receives the money and fails to return it as soon as administratively possible. The court found that MHFA received and retained the redemption funds without returning them, thereby waiving its right to challenge Creative’s redemption. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. View "Court of Appeals Petition of Minnesota Housing Finance" on Justia Law

After being arrested for the death of his girlfriend, the defendant was initially charged with second-degree intentional murder and second-degree felony murder. He was represented by a public defender for about six months. The defendant then requested to represent himself, citing conflicts with his attorney and the inability to obtain substitute counsel from the public defender’s office. At a hearing, the district court discussed the risks of self-representation with the defendant, reviewed a written petition to proceed pro se, and found the defendant lucid and thoughtful. The court allowed the defendant to waive his right to counsel and appointed advisory counsel.About a week later, a grand jury indicted the defendant on a new, more serious charge: first-degree domestic abuse murder, carrying a potential life sentence. At a subsequent hearing, the district court explained the increased stakes and confirmed that the defendant understood the new penalties and still wished to represent himself. The defendant continued pro se through pretrial motions, a stipulated-facts court trial, and sentencing, ultimately being convicted and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of supervised release after 30 years.On direct appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court, the defendant argued that his initial waiver of counsel was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, and that after the indictment, the district court failed to obtain a valid renewed waiver in light of the increased charges and penalties. The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. It held that the district court did not err in finding both the initial waiver and the renewed waiver valid, given the defendant’s consultation with counsel, the comprehensive advisement by the court, and the defendant’s clear understanding of the risks. The conviction was affirmed. View "State of Minnesota vs. Turner" on Justia Law