Justia Minnesota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Lincoln Caldwell was convicted in district court of aiding and abetting first-degree premeditated murder for the benefit of a gang. Caldwell appealed his conviction and the denial of two postconviction petitions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that (1) Minn. Stat. 609.05 permits the conviction of a defendant for aiding and abetting first-degree murder notwithstanding the fact that the party who fired the shots that killed the victim was acquitted of first-degree murder and convicted of second-degree murder; (2) there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that the party who fired the shots that killed the victim had the necessary intent and premeditation to sustain Caldwell's conviction; and (3) there was sufficient evidence that a group of persons with whom Caldwell associated, and for whose benefit he committed the crime of first-degree murder, was a statutorily-defined gang. View "State v. Caldwell" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, the district court convicted Ronald Hill of first-degree premeditated murder. The Supreme Court affirmed Hill's conviction, holding (1) because the district court properly and carefully balanced the potential probative value and prejudicial effects of the proffered impeachment evidence, the court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted evidence of Hill's prior, unspecified felony conviction for impeachment purposes; (2) Hill was not entitled to a new trial because allegedly improper testimony that the State obtained Hill's DNA sample through a search warrant was harmless because it did not affect Hill's substantial rights; (3) any alleged error in admitting evidence that Hill shot the victim with a gun stolen during a home invasion was harmless because there was not a reasonable possibility that the alleged error significantly affected the verdict; and (4) the cumulative effect of any errors resulting from the admission of disputed testimony did not affect Hill's substantial rights, and therefore, Hill was not deprived of his constitutional right to a fair trial. View "State v. Hill" on Justia Law

Elizabeth Hawes was convicted of aiding and abetting her brother, Andrew Hawes, in the first-degree murder of their brother, Edwin Hawes. The district court sentenced Hawes to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed Hawes' conviction, holding (1) the circumstantial evidence was legally sufficient to support Hawes' conviction of aiding and abetting first-degree premeditated murder; (2) any error the the district court made when it ruled that out-of-court statements made by Andrew were not admissible as declarations against penal interest was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Hawes' motion for a new trial on the grounds of newly available evidence. View "State v. Hawes" on Justia Law

Toby Johnson was indicted for intentional murder while committing a kidnapping, murder in the second degree, and kidnapping. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the State amended the first count to aiding and abetting first-degree murder. Johnson then pleaded guilty to counts one and two. Johnson was sentenced to life in prison with a possibility of parole after thirty years. The postconviction court denied Johnson's petition for postconviction relief, and the Supreme Court affirmed. Later, Johnson filed a motion to correct or reduce his sentence, alleging that his guilty plea was invalid for several reasons. The district court concluded that the sentencing court had erred during the sentencing hearing by citing to the second-degree murder statute when imposing a sentence for first-degree murder. As to Johnson's other reasons for requested relief, the court concluded that the Supreme Court's rule from State v. Knaffla barred Johnson from raising claims that were not raised in his first petition for postconviction relief. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the postconviction court's denial of Johnson's motion challenging the validity of his guilty plea, holding that Johnson's petition was untimely and should not be considered on the merits. View "Johnson v. State" on Justia Law

This case involved the assault of a pregnant woman, who, after the assault, received a cesarean section. The baby, named Destiny, later died. After a jury trial, Dameon Gatson was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder for aiding the perpetrator in the killing of Destiny and first-degree assault. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err when it upheld the State's strike of a prospective juror; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict; (3) the trial court did not err by not instructing the jury on whether Destiny was a "human being" for purposes of the homicide statutes and on whether the removal of Destiny's life support was a superseding intervening cause of her death; (4) any error in admitting portions of the perpetrator's guilty plea was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and any violation of Gatson's right to confrontation was harmless; (5) Gatson was not entitled to relief on his claim that the admission of the perpetrator's guilty plea violated hearsay rules; and (6) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Gatson's motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. View "State v. Gatson" on Justia Law

John Miles was convicted of first-degree murder. Miles filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging that he was entitled to a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence, specifically, the information in an interview between Miles's counsel and a witness of the homicide, who stated that Miles was not responsible for the shooting of the victim. The postconviction court denied the petition, concluding that it was time-barred under Minn. Stat. 590.01. On review, the Supreme Court affirmed without prejudice, holding (1) the postconviction court erred when it determined that the witness's statement could have been discovered by the exercise of due diligence prior to trial, (2) the postconviction court applied the wrong legal test when it concluded that the witness's statement did not establish by a clear and convincing standard that Miles was innocent, but (3) the court did not err when it denied Miles's petition without a hearing because Miles failed to offer newly discovered evidence with sufficient indicia of reliability to warrant relief under the statute. The Court concluded if Miles could base a new petition on a more satisfactory showing of a genuine statement from the witness, he was entitled to file a new petition. View "Miles v. State" on Justia Law

Daniel Dalbec was found guilty of third-degree criminal sexual conduct. At Dalbec's trial, counsel for the State and Dalbec agreed to submit written closing arguments to the trial court, but defense counsel failed to submit a closing argument. On appeal, Delbec argued that he was entitled to a new trial based on a structural error that allegedly occurred when the trial court adjudicated his guilt without having received a closing argument from his counsel. The court of appeals reversed Dalbec's conviction and granted Dalbec a new trial based on the structural error. The Supreme Court granted the State's petition for review and reversed the court of appeals. At issue was whether defense counsel's failure to submit a written closing argument constituted structural error requiring automatic reversal and a new trial. The Court held (1) defense counsel's failure to submit a closing argument did not result in structural error, and (2) the trial court's adjudication of Dalbec's guilt without the benefit of closing argument was not structural error. Remanded. View "State v. Dalbec" on Justia Law

Appellant Andy Prtine was convicted of first-degree felony murder for the stabbing death of Brent Ward. On appeal, Appellant argued that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney conceded in his closing argument without Appellant's consent that Appellant intended to kill Ward. The Supreme Court held that Appellant's counsel conceded guilt with respect to the element of intent to kill in his statement and remanded to the district court to determine whether Appellant acquiesced in his trial counsel's concession of intent to kill. The district court ruled that Appellant acquiesced in his counsel's concession that the killing was intentional. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant's conviction, holding that (1) Appellant acquiesced in the concession, and (2) because Appellant acquiesced in his trial counsel's concession of guilt with respect to intent to kill, Appellant was not entitled to a new trial based on his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. View "State v. Prtine" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Jack Nissalke was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Nissalke was not entitled to a new trial based on the district court's entry into the jury room and communication with the jury outside the presence of counsel and Nissalke while the jury was deliberating; (2) the district court did not violate Nissalke's right to present a complete defense by refusing to admit certain alternative perpetrator evidence; (3) the State did not commit prejudicial misconduct by asserting facts not in evidence in opening statements and closing arguments and by shifting the burden of proof to Nissalke in closing; (4) although the district court erred by failing to remove a biased juror for cause, this error did not require reversal; (5) the evidence was sufficient to support Nissalke's conviction; (6) the State did not violate Nissalke's due process rights by failing to preserve physical evidence; and (7) Nissalke was not entitled to a new trial based on his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. View "State v. Nissalke" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, appellant Justin Buckingham was convicted of attempted first-degree premeditated murder and attempted first-degree drive-by-shooting murder. The Supreme Court affirmed appellant's convictions but modified his sentence. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, asserting that the district court admitted his statements to police in violation of his constitutional rights, his court-ordered psychological evaluation was incomplete, the district court gave the jury an erroneous accomplice liability instruction, and his trial counsel was ineffective. The district court denied Buckingham's petition for relief without a hearing, rejected Buckingham's claims on the merits, and held that most of Buckingham's claims were procedurally barred under State v. Knaffla. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion when (1) it held that Buckingham's claims were barred under Knaffla, and (2) it denied appellant an evidentiary hearing because the records of the proceeding conclusively showed that Buckingham was not entitled to postconviction relief. View "Buckingham v. State" on Justia Law