Justia Minnesota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree premeditated murder, first-degree arson, and theft of a motor vehicle. The district court sentenced Defendant to two consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole for the two first-degree premeditated murder convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court's removal of two persons from the courtroom during voir dire did not violate Defendant's right to a public trial; (2) the district court erred when it admitted a statement Defendant made to the police during an unlawful search, but the error was harmless; (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted into evidence several items that were found when Defendant was arrested; and (4) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it ruled that, if Defendant chose to testify at trial, the State could attempt to impeach him using three prior felony convictions. View "State v. Zornes" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of release. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant's conviction, holding (1) the record contained sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict that Appellant, rather than an unidentified alternative perpetrator, was guilty of first-degree premeditated murder; and (2) based on State v. Brown and applying the factors set forth in State v. Lindsay, the trial court did not violate the public trial guarantees of the U.S. and Minnesota Constitutions by locking the courtroom doors before the State began its closing argument. View "State v. Silvernail" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder for the shooting death of Johanna Hollis and the attempted first-degree murder of Hollis's daughter. At trial, the State was only able to present a minimal amount of direct evidence connecting Defendant to the scene of the shooting. Thus, the State had to rely primarily on circumstantial evidence that included certain cellphone records. The records indicated that Defendant was in the vicinity of the shooting and supported the assertion by two witnesses that Defendant made threats to Hollis during a cellphone call Defendant placed to Hollis the night of the shooting. While Defendant's appeal was pending, a forensic expert conducted an examination of Defendant's cellphone. Defendant then petitioned for postconviction relief, alleging that the examination revealed Hollis could not have received the alleged threatening phone calls from Hollis's cellphone and that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to obtain Hollis's cellphone records and by failing to conduct a forensic examination of Hollis's cellphone. The postconviction court denied the petition without a hearing. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant met the threshold showing required to receive an evidentiary hearing on his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. Remanded. View "State v. Nicks" on Justia Law

Defendant indicted of four counts of first-degree murder, one count of second-degree murder, and several related crimes arising out of the shooting death of his ex-wife and the kidnapping of their three children. Because Defendant pleaded not guilty by reason of mental illness, the district court bifurcated the trial. The jury found Defendant guilty of all counts and rejected his not-guilty-by-reason-of-mental-illness defense. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err by declining to remove a prospective juror for cause; (2) did not commit reversible error in making certain comments to the jury regarding the upcoming schedule of phase two of the trial; (3) may have erred in denying Defendant's request to testify on surrebuttal, but the error was harmless; (4) did not abuse its discretion when it determined that Defendant's nine-year-old daughter was incompetent to testify; and (5) did not abuse its discretion in failing to inquire into the nature of Defendant's pretrial complaints about counsel appointed to represent Defendant. In addition, the Court concluded that Defendant's pro se claims lacked merit. View "State v. Munt" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of first-degree murder while committing domestic abuse with a past pattern of domestic abuse, and second-degree murder while committing a felony. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State presented sufficient evidence to prove that Defendant assaulted the victim and caused his death; (2) the State presented sufficient evidence to prove Defendant had engaged in a past pattern of domestic abuse; (3) the district court did not err in failing to instruct the jury that a past pattern of domestic abuse requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of at least two prior acts of abuse; and (4) the district court did not err in failing to instruct the jury that it needed to agree unanimously on which two specific acts of past abuse were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Hayes" on Justia Law

Appellants hired Respondent as the general contractor to build a seasonal residence on Appellant's property. Respondent purchased a general liability insurance policy from Midwest Family Mutual Insurance Company that included an absolute pollution exclusion. Respondent later purchased a boiler for Appellant's home that bore a label warning that the boiler was designed to run on natural gas only. Respondent connected the boiler to a liquid propane line. Appellants were later transported to hospital due to carbon monoxide poisoning from the boiler. Appellants brought litigation against Respondent. Midwest initiated a declaratory judgment action, requesting that the district court find Midwest had no duty to defend or indemnify Respondent because coverage was barred under the absolute pollution exclusion. The district court denied Midwest's motion for summary judgment, concluding that it would be inappropriate to rule as a matter of law that the absolute pollution exclusion barred coverage under the facts in this case since Respondent did not cause any environmental pollution. The court of appeals reversed, holding that carbon monoxide constitutes a pollutant in the Midwest policy. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that carbon monoxide released from a negligently installed boiler is clearly a "pollutant" that is subject to the absolute pollution exclusion of the Midwest policy. View "Midwest Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wolters" on Justia Law

This case involved a facial challenge to the constitutionality of the City of Red Wing's rental property inspection ordinance. Appellants were landlords and tenants who brought suit seeking a declaratory that the City's ordinance violated the Minnesota Constitution. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City, concluding that Appellants lacked standing and that the constitutional claim failed on the merits. The court of appeals affirmed, ruling that Appellants lacked standing. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Appellants' facial challenge presented a justiciable controversy. On remand, the court of appeals again affirmed, this time concluding that the City's ordinance did not violate the state constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the law can be applied constitutionally; and (2) because Appellants did not satisfy their burden in a facial challenge to show that the ordinance operated unconstitutionally in all of its applications, Appellants' facial challenge failed. View "McCaughtry v. City of Red Wing" on Justia Law

Respondents, on behalf of their six-year-old daughter, Jocelyn, alleged that Appellants, a medical doctor and medical center, negligently failed to diagnose Jocelyn's cancer and that if they had timely diagnosed Jocelyn's cancer, her cancer would have been curable. But, Respondents asserted, because of the delayed diagnosis, it was likely Jocelyn's cancer would be fatal. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellants, concluding (1) Minnesota law does not permit a patient to recover damages when a physician's negligence causes the patient to lose only a chance of recovery or survival; and (2) Respondents' proof of causation failed as a matter of law. The court of appeals reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Minnesota law permits recovery for "loss of chance" in a medical malpractice action; and (2) Respondents created a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of causation. View "Dickhoff v. Green" on Justia Law

The grandparent visitation statute allows a court to award visitation as part of several different kinds of proceedings, including a proceeding for parentage. The district court awarded grandparent visitation to the paternal grandmother (Grandmother) of T.H. after concluding that the recognition of parentage executed by T.H.'s parents pursuant to Minn. Stat. 257.75 was a "proceeding" for parentage under the grandparent visitation statute. The court of appeals affirmed. T.H.'s mother appealed, contending that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to award visitation to Grandmother. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a recognition of parentage executed and filed with the appropriate state agency under section 257.75 is a "proceeding" for purposes of the grandparent visitation statute; and (2) therefore, a "proceeding" occurred in this case, and the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to award visitation to Grandmother. View "Christianson v. Henke" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of first-degree murder and related charges. The district court sentenced Appellant on the first-degree murder conviction to a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant's conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Appellant subsequently filed a second petition for postconviction relief, alleging that his sentence was unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. The postconviction court denied Appellant's petition without an evidentiary hearing, concluding that the petition was time barred and that none of the exceptions to the time bar applied. Appellant appealed, contending that his sentence violated the Eighth Amendment and that recent decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court satisfied an exception to the time bar. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the cases upon which Appellant relied were either not applicable to Appellant or did not apply retroactively to him. View "Chambers v. State" on Justia Law