Justia Minnesota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Appellant's petition for postconviction relief arguing that the district court committed reversible error by denying his pretrial motion to suppress his statements to law enforcement officers, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Appellant's request for postconviction relief.Appellant was convicted of second-degree murder and first-degree arson and sentenced to a total of 528 months in prison. Appellant later filed for postconviction relief, asserting that the district court committed reversible error by denying his pretrial motion to suppress statements he made to law enforcement officers. The district court denied relief on the grounds that Appellant was not subjected to custodial interrogation at the time he made his statements. The court of appeals affirmed on different grounds. The Supreme Court affirmed on the grounds cited by the district court, holding that Defendant could not invoke his Fifth Amendment right to counsel because no custodial interrogation took place. View "Charette v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's convictions for four counts of possession of pornographic work involving minors, holding that, assuming that Defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his online cloud storage account, the government's search of his account was lawful under the private search doctrine.At issue in this case was the conduct of law enforcement officers who discovered digital child pornography files stores in Defendant's cloud storage account with Dropbox. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence acquired from his Dropbox account, arguing that the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The district court denied the motion to suppress. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the warrantless search of Defendant's online cloud storage account did not violate the Fourth Amendment. View "State v. Pauli" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the tax court denying summary judgment to Rainbow Early Education Center, an early childhood center, on its claim for a tax exclusion as a seminary of learning under Minn. Const. art. X, 1 and Minn. Stat. 272.02, subd. 5, holding that the tax court did not correctly apply the standard set forth in State v. Northwestern Preparatory School, 83 N.W.2d 242 (Minn. 1957).Rainbow petitioned for a property tax exemption, claiming status as a seminary of learning. Because prior decisions concerning the meaning of the phrase "seminaries of learning" centered on secondary or postsecondary institutions Rainbow cited licensure, facilities, programming, and rating by a government-administered best practices program in support of its claim that it was entitled to a property tax exemption . The tax court granted summary judgment to the County. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) an institution is an exempt seminary of learning when it has an educational purpose, provides a broad general education, and does so in a thorough and comprehensive manner; and (2) Rainbow presented uncontroverted evidence of each element. View "Under the Rainbow Early Education Center v. County of Goodhue" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction of threats of violence in violation of Minn. Stat. 609.713, subd. 1, holding that Defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial was not violated in this case.At issue was whether trial delays caused by judicial orders issued in response to the COVID-19 global pandemic weighed against the State in the evaluation of whether Defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial had been violated. The Supreme Court answered the question in the negative and affirmed Defendant's conviction, holding (1) trial delays caused by statewide orders issued in response to the COVID-19 global pandemic statewide orders do not weigh against the State; and (2) the State brought Defendant to trial quickly enough so as not to violate his constitutional right to a speedy trial. View "State v. Paige" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of the County of Anoka in this case concerning the proper interpretation of Minn. Stat. 103D.311, which governs the appointment of watershed district managers, holding that several of the district court's conclusions were erroneous.The City of Circle Pines brought this action alleging that the County followed an improper procedure in reappointing Patricia Preiner, a resident of the City of Columbus, to the Rice Creek Watershed District board of managers. The district court granted summary judgment for the County, ruling that section 103D.311 unambiguously allowed the County the discretion to appoint a manager from any city that neglected to submit a list of nominees. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) section 103D.311 is ambiguous; (2) the statute requires the aggregate list of city nominees to have three nominees to be valid; and (3) the requirement under the statute that counties appoint managers from city nominees applies unless those nominees cannot fairly represent the various hydrologic areas in the watershed district. View "City of Circle Pines v. County of Anoka" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first-degree premeditated murder, holding that the State presented sufficient evidence to support the conviction and that the sentence imposed upon Defendant was not unconstitutionally cruel.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of release. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the conviction; and (2) a mandatory sentence of life without the possibility of release is not unconstitutionally cruel under Minn. Const. art. I, section 5 when imposed on a twenty-one-year-old defendant who has been convicted of first-degree premeditated murder. View "State v. Hassan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first-degree felony murder and his sentence of life imprisonment as well as the denial of his petition for postconviction relief, holding that sufficient evidence supported the conviction and that Defendant's constitutional and ineffective assistance of counsel challenges failed.After he was convicted Defendant filed a direct appeal. The Supreme Court stayed the appeal to allow Defendant to pursue postconviction relief. The district court denied the petition following an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court lifted the stay, consolidated Defendant's appeal, and affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; (2) Defendant's arguments related to a witness's identification testimony failed; (3) Defendant's right to a speedy trial was not violated; and (4) Defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were without merit. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court imposing a mandatory five-year conditional release term in connection with Defendant's conviction of fourth-degree assault of a secure treatment facility employee of the Minnesota Sex Offender Treatment Program (MSOP), holding that there was a rational basis for the sentencing disparity at issue in this case.After he was convicted, Defendant filed a petition for postconviction relief arguing that Minn. Stat. 609.2231, subd. 3a(e) required the district court to impose different sentences for the same conduct based on the defendant's civil commitment status, and therefore, his sentence violated his equal protection rights under the United States and Minnesota Constitutions. The district court denied postconviction relief, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the disparate sentence survived rational basis review. View "State v. Lee" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's convictions on two counts of first-degree burglary and two counts of second-degree assault, holding that there was no error.After the jury announced its verdicts in this case Defendant exercised his right to poll the jury. While the record showed that the jury was composed of twelve members, the transcript of the jury polling contained only eleven responses. On appeal, Defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he was afforded his constitutional right to a unanimous, twelve-person jury. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) sufficient evidentiary support in the record established that Defendant was found guilty by a twelve-member jury; and (2) Defendant was not entitled to relief for any error in the jury polling because it was not a structural error, and Defendant did not satisfy the plain error doctrine. View "State v. Bey" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court finding Defendant guilty of four counts of violence under Minn. Stat. 609.713, subd. 1, holding that section 609.713, subd. 1 does not violate the First Amendment.After he was charged, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that the portion of section 609.713, subd. 1 that applies to threats of violence made "in a reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror" was unconstitutionally overbroad. The district court denied the motion and found Defendant guilty. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that even if the statute prohibited some protected speech, it was not facially overbroad under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) specific intent is not required to make a communication a true threat; (2) the statute punishes only reckless speech that is a true threat; and (3) because few situations of reckless but protected threats would be swept up in criminal prosecutions, the statute is not facially overbroad. View "State v. Mrozinski" on Justia Law