Justia Minnesota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Atravius Weeks was indicted for first-degree premeditated murder, first-degree domestic abuse murder, and second-degree intentional murder after he confessed to shooting and killing Cortney Henry in Dakota County, Minnesota. The incident occurred in June 2021, and Weeks was apprehended shortly after the crime. At trial, Weeks raised concerns about the racial composition of the jury panel, noting that Black individuals were underrepresented compared to the county’s population. He argued that the jury pool did not reflect a fair cross-section of the community, as required by the Constitution.The Dakota County District Court denied Weeks’s request for a new jury panel and, after a jury found him guilty on all counts, entered convictions for all three murder charges. Weeks’s direct appeal was stayed to allow him to file a postconviction petition, which included an expert affidavit suggesting that the use of voter registration and driver’s license lists for jury selection systematically underrepresents Black people. The district court summarily denied the postconviction petition, finding that Weeks failed to show systematic exclusion of Black jurors under the three-prong test from State v. Williams, and cited prior Minnesota cases holding that the jury selection process does not systematically exclude people of color.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the district court abused its discretion by summarily denying the postconviction petition. The Supreme Court found that, when the facts alleged are viewed in the light most favorable to Weeks, the record does not conclusively show he is entitled to no relief, and genuine issues of material fact remain regarding systematic exclusion. The Court also held that the district court violated Minnesota Statutes section 609.04 by entering convictions for both first-degree domestic abuse murder and second-degree intentional murder in addition to first-degree premeditated murder. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing and ordered the vacation of the lesser murder convictions. View "State of Minnesota vs. Weeks" on Justia Law

In this case, the appellant was convicted by a jury in Hennepin County District Court of first-degree premeditated murder and second-degree intentional murder for the shooting death of Lavelle Jackson. The conviction was based in part on testimony from a jailhouse witness, S.P., who claimed the appellant confessed to the crime. After sentencing, the appellant sought postconviction relief, arguing that newly discovered evidence—specifically, testimony from Dequarn Bell, another inmate—would have undermined S.P.’s credibility and potentially changed the outcome of the trial.Following a stay of the direct appeal, the appellant petitioned for postconviction relief in the Hennepin County District Court, presenting affidavits and testimony from Bell and his trial attorney. Bell’s testimony suggested that S.P. was motivated by self-interest and that the appellant had maintained his innocence. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied the petition, finding Bell’s testimony not credible. In making this determination, the district court relied on detailed information about Bell’s criminal history, including facts not presented by either party at the hearing. These extra-record facts were obtained through the judge’s own independent investigation.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the denial of postconviction relief. The court held that the district court’s deliberate investigation and consideration of facts outside the record violated the appellant’s constitutional right to an impartial judge under the Due Process Clause of the Minnesota Constitution. This violation constituted structural error, requiring automatic reversal without a harmless error analysis. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s denial of postconviction relief in part and remanded the case for a new evidentiary hearing before an impartial judge. View "State of Minnesota vs. Duol" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with multiple counts, including first-degree and third-degree criminal sexual conduct, domestic assault, and threats of violence. During jury deliberations, a juror was exposed to COVID-19, raising concerns that continued deliberations might pressure the jury to reach a verdict. After discussing the situation with counsel, the district court decided to end deliberations, take any unanimous verdicts, and declare a mistrial on any deadlocked counts. The defendant’s attorney, at the defendant’s request, asked for a complete mistrial on all counts. The jury ultimately reported no unanimous verdicts, and the district court declared a mistrial on all counts.Following the mistrial, the State refiled the charges. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that a retrial would violate the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Minnesota Constitutions. The Hennepin County District Court denied the motion, finding that double jeopardy did not bar retrial. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that because the defendant requested the mistrial, double jeopardy would only bar retrial if the government had intentionally provoked the request, which was not the case here.The Supreme Court of Minnesota reviewed the case and affirmed the decision of the court of appeals. The court held that when a defendant requests and receives a mistrial, double jeopardy does not bar retrial unless the government intentionally induced or provoked the request. The court found no evidence that the district court or prosecution provoked the defendant’s mistrial request. The court also rejected arguments that the defendant had withdrawn his request or preserved an objection to the mistrial. As a result, the court concluded that double jeopardy did not attach, and the defendant may be retried. View "State v. Lerma" on Justia Law

In 1998, Joel Underwood, III, pleaded guilty to third-degree assault, which is classified as a crime of violence under Minnesota law. He was convicted and placed on probation. In 2000, after completing probation, a Dakota County district court issued an order restoring his civil rights and stating that he was prohibited from possessing a firearm for 10 years, which was consistent with the law at that time. In 2003, the Minnesota Legislature amended the relevant statute to impose a lifetime ban on firearm possession for individuals convicted of a crime of violence. Underwood was not specifically notified of this change. In 2021, he was found in possession of a firearm and charged under the amended statute.After being charged, Underwood waived his right to a jury trial and pleaded guilty to being an ineligible person in possession of a firearm. During the plea, he admitted to knowingly possessing a firearm and to his prior conviction but stated he did not know he was still ineligible to possess a firearm. The Anoka County District Court accepted his plea and sentenced him to the mandatory minimum. Underwood later petitioned for postconviction relief, arguing that his conviction violated due process because he relied on the 2000 discharge order and that his plea was invalid since he did not admit knowledge of his ineligibility. The postconviction court denied relief, and the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that there was no due process violation and that knowledge of ineligibility was not required for conviction.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The court held that when a court order accurately reflects the law at the time but the law is later amended, the State does not violate due process by prosecuting under the amended statute. The court also held that the offense of ineligible person in possession of a firearm does not require proof that the defendant knew of their ineligibility, only that they knowingly possessed a firearm and had a prior conviction for a crime of violence. View "Underwood v. State" on Justia Law

Melvin Bilbro was charged after killing Shanna Daniels in her North Saint Paul apartment and setting the apartment on fire. Evidence at trial established that Bilbro and Daniels had a significant romantic and sexual relationship, as shown by their frequent text messages, terms of endearment, and testimony from acquaintances. On the night of the murder, Daniels was found dead with multiple stab wounds, and the fire in her apartment was determined to be intentionally set. Investigators found blood evidence linking Bilbro to the scene, and Daniels’s dog was discovered in Bilbro’s apartment. Bilbro denied involvement and claimed he was not in a relationship with Daniels.The State charged Bilbro with first-degree domestic-abuse murder, second-degree intentional murder, and first-degree arson. Bilbro waived his right to a jury trial on guilt but reserved the right to a jury for any facts supporting an aggravated sentence. The trial proceeded in Ramsey County District Court as a bench trial. The State presented evidence of Bilbro’s prior acts of domestic abuse against a former girlfriend, A.B., including physical assaults and an attempted murder for which Bilbro had previously been convicted. The district court found Bilbro guilty on all counts and sentenced him to life in prison for first-degree domestic-abuse murder and a consecutive 57-month sentence for arson, finding that the arson was committed to conceal the murder.On direct appeal, Bilbro argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove a significant romantic relationship with Daniels or a past pattern of domestic abuse, and that his Sixth Amendment right to a jury was violated when the court, rather than a jury, found facts authorizing the consecutive arson sentence under Minn. Stat. § 609.035. The Minnesota Supreme Court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the murder conviction and that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury under Blakely v. Washington does not apply to the threshold question of whether a sentence may be imposed for an offense under Minn. Stat. § 609.035. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Ramsey County v. Bilbro" on Justia Law

Police officers responded to a report that a man in a yellow and black coat was pointing a handgun at people at a Minneapolis light rail station. They found the suspect inside a nearby pizza restaurant, where several other people, including 16-year-old C.T.B., were standing nearby. An officer, based on his experience that weapons can be passed among individuals in a group, conducted a pat-frisk of C.T.B. and found a handgun in his possession. C.T.B. was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm by a minor and moved to suppress the handgun, arguing that the officers lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion to frisk him.The Hennepin County District Court denied the motion to suppress, finding that C.T.B.’s proximity to the original suspect and the officer’s experience justified the frisk. After a stipulated facts trial, the court found C.T.B. guilty and stayed adjudication. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning that the totality of the circumstances—including the possibility that the original suspect had handed off the firearm—made the frisk of C.T.B. objectively reasonable.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the officers did not have reasonable, articulable suspicion that C.T.B. was armed and dangerous when they conducted the pat-frisk. The court clarified that mere proximity to a suspect in an alleged crime, even when combined with general knowledge that weapons can be passed among group members, is not sufficient to justify a warrantless pat-frisk under Terry v. Ohio. The court reversed the decision of the court of appeals and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. View "In the Matter of the Welfare of: C.T.B" on Justia Law

Fletcher Properties, Inc. and other appellants own multi-tenant residential properties in Minneapolis. The City of Minneapolis enacted an ordinance prohibiting property owners from refusing to rent to individuals based on requirements of public assistance programs, including Section 8 housing vouchers. Fletcher challenged the ordinance, claiming it violated the Minnesota Constitution’s Takings Clause and was preempted by the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA).The district court initially ruled in favor of Fletcher, finding the ordinance violated due process and equal protection clauses. The court of appeals reversed this decision, and the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed, remanding the case to address the remaining claims. On remand, the district court granted summary judgment for the City, rejecting Fletcher’s takings and preemption claims. The court of appeals affirmed this decision, leading to the current appeal.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the ordinance does not constitute a physical or regulatory taking under the Minnesota Constitution. The court applied the Penn Central factors, concluding that the economic impact of the ordinance, interference with investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action did not support a finding of a regulatory taking. The court also determined that the ordinance does not effect a physical taking as landlords voluntarily rent their properties and are not compelled to continue doing so.Additionally, the court held that the ordinance is not preempted by the MHRA. The court found no conflict between the ordinance and the MHRA, as the MHRA does not grant landlords an affirmative right to reject voucher holders. The court also concluded that the MHRA does not occupy the field of housing discrimination based on public assistance, allowing for local regulation.The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals, upholding the ordinance. View "Fletcher Properties, Inc. vs. City of Minneapolis" on Justia Law

Samuel Alejondro Torrez was arrested for driving while impaired and driving after license cancellation. Law enforcement obtained a search warrant to test Torrez’s blood or urine, which he refused. Torrez was charged with first-degree test refusal and driving after license cancellation. Before trial, Torrez requested the district court to instruct the jury that the State must prove the arresting officer had probable cause to believe he was driving while impaired. The district court denied this request, and the jury found Torrez guilty on both counts.The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed Torrez’s conviction, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by not including a probable cause element in the jury instructions. The court reasoned that the issuance of the search warrant already established probable cause.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed whether Minnesota Statutes section 169A.20, subdivision 2(2), requires the State to prove that the arresting officer had probable cause to believe the defendant was driving while impaired. The court held that the plain language of the statute does not require the State to prove probable cause for the refusal of a blood or urine test when a search warrant is involved. The court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals, concluding that the district court did not err in its jury instructions. View "State v. Torrez" on Justia Law

Eloisa Rubi Plancarte was convicted of misdemeanor indecent exposure under Minnesota Statutes section 617.23, subdivision 1(1) for exposing her breasts in a gas station parking lot. Plancarte argued that her breasts are not "private parts" under the statute and that her exposure was not "lewd." She also claimed that prosecuting her for conduct that men are allowed to engage in violated her constitutional right to equal protection. The district court denied her motion to dismiss, and she was found guilty in a stipulated-evidence trial.Plancarte appealed her conviction, but the court of appeals affirmed it in a divided opinion. The majority concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, while the dissent argued that the statute requires lewd conduct in addition to exposure, which was not proven in this case.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the term "lewdly" in the statute refers to conduct of a sexual nature. The court found that the State did not present sufficient evidence to prove that Plancarte's exposure was lewd, as there was no indication that her conduct was of a sexual nature. Consequently, the court reversed Plancarte's conviction. The court did not address whether female breasts are "private parts" under the statute or the equal protection claim, as the decision on the lewdness element resolved the case. View "State v. Plancarte" on Justia Law

The case involves two petitions for a writ of quo warranto filed against certain members of the Minnesota House of Representatives. The petitions claim that at the start of the legislative session on January 14, 2025, the House did not have a quorum to transact business. Secretary of State Steve Simon, who has statutory responsibilities in the House at the start of the legislative session, brought one petition. Representatives Melissa Hortman, Jamie Long, and Athena Hollins brought the other petition. The issue arose because, following a district court ruling that a DFL member did not meet the residency requirement, the House had 67 members from each of the two major political parties, and only the Republican members were present.The Minnesota Supreme Court consolidated the cases and determined that Secretary of State Simon's petition was justiciable, thus not needing to address the justiciability of the other petition. The court held that the quorum clause in Article IV, Section 13, of the Minnesota Constitution requires a majority of the total number of seats of which each house may consist to constitute a quorum. Under current statute, the total number of seats in the Minnesota House of Representatives is 134, so a quorum is 68 members.The Minnesota Supreme Court concluded that the quorum clause's requirement of a majority of each house refers to the total number of seats prescribed by law, which is currently 134 for the House of Representatives. Therefore, a quorum requires 68 members. The court assumed that the parties would conform to this opinion without the necessity of issuing a formal writ. View "Simon v. Demuth" on Justia Law