Justia Minnesota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Diane Cox was charged with issuing dishonored checks with a value of more than $500 in violation of the dishonored-check statute, which is a felony. Cox filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the sentencing disparity between the dishonored-check statute and the theft-by-check statute violated her constitutional right to equal protection of the law because issuing a dishonored check is a lesser-included offense of theft-by-check yet is punished more harshly than the greater offense. The district court denied Cox's motion but certified to the court of appeals the question of whether the disparity in the severity of punishment between the two statutes, which arguably contemplate the same acts committed under the same circumstances by persons in like situations, constitutes an equal protection violation as applied to defendant and those similarly charged. The appellate court answered the question in the negative. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Cox is not similarly situated to a defendant who commits theft by check because her conduct would not support a conviction for theft by check, and therefore Cox was not denied equal protection of the law. View "State v. Cox" on Justia Law

In district court, appellant was convicted of aiding and abetting first-degree premeditated murder. At issue was whether the district court erred when it denied appellantâs pretrial motion to suppress statements made to law enforcement officials after appellant allegedly invoked his state and federal constitutional rights to remain silent and to have counsel present during custodial interrogation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) an invocation of the right to remain silent is ambiguous if the suspectâs statement could be interpreted as either a general refusal to answer any questions or as an expression of unwillingness to discuss a specific topic, and (2) when a suspect makes an equivocal invocation of the right to counsel, providing the suspect with a Miranda warning is sufficient as a matter of law to satisfy Minnesotaâs âstop and clarifyâ rule.

Appellant Dario Bonga pled guilty to first-degree premeditated murder less than one day after he confessed to killing Carlos San Miguel and attempted to kill himself while in custody awaiting trial. The district court accepted Appellantâs guilty plea, convicted him, and sentenced him to life in prison. Appellant filed a petition for post conviction relief in which he sought to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing that he was not competent to plead guilty. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Appellant argued that the district court did not give sufficient weight to evidence that suggested he was incompetent to plead when it sentenced him to life. Particularly, Appellant argued that the court should have ordered an examination and report on Appellantâs mental condition when it learned that Appellant attempted suicide the day before the hearing. The Supreme Courtâs review of the record revealed that on several occasions Appellant was offered counsel, dismissed counsel, sought to speak with the prosecutors, and asked to represent himself at trial. The record would also reveal that the trial court asked Appellant multiple times, on the record, whether he understood the nature of the charges against him and whether Appellant understood the risk he ran by representing himself. The Court was satisfied that the trial court gave Appellant every opportunity to seek counsel and preserve his legal rights. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed Appellantâs conviction and sentence.

A Hennepin County grand jury indicted Appellant Gary Vue with several gang-related felonies. A jury found Appellant guilty, and the district court convicted him and imposed a life sentence with the possibility of parole after 31 years. Appellant appealed his conviction, claiming that the district court erroneously admitted his statement to the police, and that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to convict him. In December, 2005, police received a tip on the whereabouts of Appellant and his brother who were both suspects in the shooting death of Za Xiong. The tip lead police to Appellant then living in Sacramento, California. The police went to Sacramento to interview him. Within eight minutes, Appellant confessed to the shooting. Police did not believe they had the authority to arrest Appellant outside their jurisdiction. They returned to Hennepin County and got an arrest warrant for the brother. Three years later, in March, 2009, police were able to apprehend Appellant in St. Paul. Appellant pled not guilty, and sought to exclude his statements made to police while in Sacramento. The district court denied Appellantâs motion to suppress, concluding that Appellant was not in custody and, therefore, the police were not required legally to advise him of his Miranda rights. The Supreme Court held that the lower court was correct to deny Appellantâs motion to suppress his statement to the police in Sacramento. Furthermore, it found that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to allow a rational trier of fact to convict him of the gang-related felonies. The Court accordingly affirmed Appellantâs conviction.