Justia Minnesota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant's petition for postconviction relief and vacating Appellant's conviction and sentence, holding that, in a postconviction proceeding, a district court has the authority under Minn. Stat. 590.04, subd. 1 to order the State to refund restitution that the defendant has paid because of a conviction when that conviction has been invalidated and no retrial will occur.Appellant was convicted of one count of violating Minn. Stat. 609.27, subd. 1(4). Later, subdivision 1(4) was declared facially overbroad and unconstitutional. In her petition for postconviction relief, Appellant asserted that, under Nelson v. Colorado, 581 U.S. __ (2017), she was entitled to a refund of all restitution payments made because of her invalid conviction. The district court vacated her conviction and sentence but denied her request for a refund of restitution on the grounds that it lacked authority to do so. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, in a postconviction proceeding, a district court has the authority to order a refund of restitution when the monetary assessments the defendant paid were imposed solely because of the conviction, the State exacted those assessments, and the conviction was invalidated with no prospect of retrial. View "Byington v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' opinion affirming the district court's conclusion that Minn. Stat. 609.746, subd. 1(e)(2) does not require a defendant to have knowledge of the victim's age when the offense criminalized under this statute is committed, holding that the district court's pretrial ruling was erroneous.Section 609.746, subd. 1(d)(1) makes it a crime secretly to use a device to record or photograph a person in a place where a reasonable person would have an expectation of privacy and is likely to expose their private parts. At issue was subdivision 1(e)(2), which enhances the offense from a gross misdemeanor to a felony of the defendant secretly records a minor under the age of eighteen. Defendant filed a pretrial motion to dismiss the charge against him because the State failed to allege that he knew or had reason to know that the victim was a minor under the age of eighteen when he committed the offense. The district court denied the motion, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the plain language of section 609.746, subd. 1(e)(2) requires the State to prove that Defendant committed the offense while knowing or having reason to know a person under the age of eighteen was present. View "State v. Galvan-Contreras" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that, for double jeopardy purposes, the unit of prosecution for a violation of Minn. Stat. 243.166, subd. 3(a), which requires a predatory offender to register "with the corrections agent as soon as the agent is assigned to the person," is the assignment of a corrections agent, thus affirming in part and reversing in part the decision of the court of appeals.Defendant was convicted and sentenced on seven separate occasions between 2004 and 2018 for failing to register under subdivision 3(a). In August 2019, Defendant refused to sign required paperwork presented by his new corrections agent. In September 2019, Defendant again refused to sign the paperwork presented by a special agent of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension assigned by Defendant's corrections agent. The State charged Defendant with two counts of failing to register under subdivision 3(a). Defendant moved to dismiss the charges on double jeopardy grounds. The district court denied the motion, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) Defendant's earlier convictions did not bar prosecution of the August 2019 offense; but (2) the September 2019 offense was barred. View "State v. Larson" on Justia Law

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 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 sentence for aiding an offender as an accomplice after the fact for her role in concealing evidence of a murder that her husband committed, holding that the sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum.Defendant pleaded guilty to aiding an offender to avoid arrest and being an accomplice after the fact. After a sentencing hearing, the district court sentenced Defendant to forty-eight months in prison. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in sentencing Defendant to forty-eight months in prison for being an accomplice after the fact. View "State v. Miller" on Justia Law

In this sexual assault case, the Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition sought by Hope Coalition to prohibit the district court from requiring it to disclose records concerning the alleged victim's counseling to the district court for in camera review, holding that the district court's actions were unreasonable.Hope Coalition invoked the sexual-assault-counselor privilege under Minn. Stat. 595.02, subdivision 1(k) to prevent Defendant's motion in his criminal prosecution seeking disclosure of records concerning the alleged victim's counseling. The district court concluded that compliance with the subpoena to produce the records protected by the sexual-assault-counselor privilege for in camera review was reasonable without addressing that privilege. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the plain language of the statute creates a privilege for sexual assault counselors that cannot be pierced in a criminal proceeding without the victim's consent; and (2) the district court's denial of Hope Coalition's motion to quash the subpoena seeking the records at issue was unauthorized by law. View "State v. Conrad" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the decision of the district court to deny Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, holding that Defendant did not meet his burden of proving that his plea was invalid.Defendant pleaded guilty to the charge of violating a domestic abuse no contact order. On appeal, Defendant argued that a manifest injustice occurred that required a plea withdrawal due to his failure personally to admit his previous convictions during his plea colloquy, which made his plea inaccurate. The court of appeals agreed and reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Defendant did not meet his burden to establish a manifest injustice requiring a plea withdrawal or that his plea was otherwise invalid; and (2) therefore, the court of appeals committed reversible error in reversing Defendant's conviction on the basis that his guilty plea was invalid. View "State v. Epps" on Justia Law