Justia Minnesota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting first-degree murder and second-degree intentional murder. One year later, Appellant petitioned for postconviction relief under Minn. Stat. 590.01. The postconviction court denied relief. Defendant later filed a motion to correct his sentence pursuant to Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03(9) challenging the validity of his guilty plea. The postconviction court denied relief on all of Appellant’s claims with the exception of a clerical error, concluding that Appellant’s claims were properly treated as requests for postconviction relief under Minn. Stat. 590.01 and that the holding in State v. Knaffla barred Appellant’s claims. Five years later, Appellant filed a motion to correct his sentence under Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03(9). The postconviction court denied relief, concluding that Appellant motion was, in effect, a petition for postconviction relief and that it was both untimely and Knaffla-barred. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the postconviction court properly dismissed Appellant’s claim as untimely. View "Johnson v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of second-degree intentional murder and second-degree felony murder. Defendant was sentenced to 306 months in prison for second-degree intentional murder. Defendant appealed, arguing that the accomplice-liability instructions given to the jury failed accurately to state the law. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the accomplice-liability instructions were plainly erroneous but that the error did not affect Defendant’s substantial rights. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the instructions at issue were plainly erroneous; (2) Defendant met his burden of proving that the plainly erroneous jury instructions affected his substantial rights; and (3) a new trial was necessary in this case to protect the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of the judicial proceedings. View "State v. Huber" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of two counts of first-degree murder and two counts of second-degree murder. The district court sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment without the possibility of release on the first-degree murder conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. After unsuccessfully seeking postconviction relief, Appellant filed a second petition for postconviction relief, alleging that he was entitled to a new trial on two grounds. The postconviction court denied the petition without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant’s claim that the district court gave an erroneous jury instruction during trial was untimely, and the postconviction court did not abuse its discretion when it denied his petition without a hearing; and (2) Appellant was not entitled to relief in the interests of justice based on any of the issues he raised. View "Bolstad v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of first-degree premeditated murder. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction on appeal. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for postconvction relief raising several legal claims without providing factual support for any of them. Appellant separately moved for additional time to file an addendum that would set forth the necessary factual support for his petition. Appellant then moved to disqualify the postconviction judge assigned to his postconviction proceeding. The postconviction judge denied both Appellant’s motion to disqualify and the motion for additional time to file an addendum. Thereafter, the postconviction court denied Appellant’s petition for postconviction relief, ruling that most of Appellant’s claims could have been raised on direct appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the postconviction judge erred by failing to refer to the Chief Judge of the Tenth Judicial District Appellant’s motion to disqualify, but the error was harmless; and (2) the postconviction court did not abuse its discretion by denying Appellant’s petition for postconviction relief and motion for additional time to file an addendum. View "Rossberg v. State" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, Defendant was convicted of third-degree possession of a controlled substance. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress the heroin seized from the car he was driving on the grounds that the police unlawfully searched the car without a warrant. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the police did not have probable cause to arrest Defendant or to search his car. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the warrantless search of Defendant’s car was lawful under the automobile exception because there was probable cause to believe that Defendant’s car contained contraband, and therefore, the district court properly denied Defendant’s motion to suppress. View "State v. Lester" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of first-degree murder while committing child abuse, second-degree felony murder, and second-degree manslaughter. The district court imposed a life sentence with eligibility for supervised release after thirty years. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding (1) the jury instruction describing felony malicious punishment of a child as a type of child abuse was plainly erroneous, but Appellant failed to establish that the erroneous jury instruction affected her substantial rights; (2) assuming that the district court abused its discretion when it allowed a state expert to testify that biting a child is a “particularly vicious” form of child abuse, there was no reasonable likelihood that the testimony significantly affected the verdict in this case; and (3) the prosecutor made improper remarks during closing argument, but the prosecutorial misconduct did not affect Appellant’s substantial rights. View "State v. Peltier" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of three counts of first-degree murder while committing first-degree criminal sexual conduct. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of release. Thereafter, Defendant filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging that the district court committed three errors entitling him to relief. The postconviction court denied relief on all grounds. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant’s request to introduce alternative-perpetrator evidence; (2) the district court did not err when it denied Defendant’s request for a lesser-included-offense instruction on second-degree intentional murder; and (3) the trial judge presiding at Defendant’s jury trial was not disqualified based on an appearance of partiality. View "Troxel v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal and affirmed the denial of Appellant’s first and second postconviction petitions. This appeal arose from the postconviction court’s summary denial of Appellant’s third and fourth petitions for postconviction relief on the grounds that the petitions were untimely. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the postconviction court did not abuse its discretion by determining that Appellant’s third petition was untimely under Minn. Stat. 590.01(4)(c) and that Appellant’s fourth postconviction petition was untimely under Minn. Stat. 590.01(4)(b)(2). View "Rhodes v. State" on Justia Law

During a traffic stop, Defendant failed two sobriety tests. Defendant provided a weak breath sample and refused to provide a second breath sample in violation of Minn. Stat. 169A.20(2). Defendant was subsequently charged with first-degree refusal to submit to testing and first-degree driving under the influence. Defendant pleaded guilty to the refusal-to-test charge. Defendant appealed, arguing that the implied-consent law was unconstitutional and that his conviction was invalid because district court failed fully to comply with the provisions of Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.01(4). The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court committed plain error by failing to fully comply with the provisions of Rule 26.01(4), but Defendant failed to show prejudice to his substantial rights and was therefore not entitled to relief based on this error. View "State v. Myhre" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of first-degree premeditated murder for the benefit of a gang and two counts of attempted first-degree premeditated murder for the benefit of a gang. The convictions arose from a drive-by shooting. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions, holding that the district court (1) did not commit prejudicial error when it admitted evidence of a prior drive-by shooting incident that led to Defendant’s prior conviction of attempted murder; (2) did not abuse its discretion when it permitted the State to introduce testimony on gangs from an expert witness; and (3) did not err in its instruction on reasonable doubt because it used language the Supreme Court approved in State v. Smith, rather than the language of the pattern jury instruction. Also, Defendant was not entitled to relief based on any of the claims contained in his pro se brief. View "State v. Thao" on Justia Law