Justia Minnesota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's petition for postconviction relief arguing that the rule announced in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), and later clarified in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. __ (2016), should be extended to adult offenders whose crimes reflect the transient immaturity of youth, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant's postconviction petition.Defendant was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and sentenced to a mandatory term of life in prison without the possibility of release. Defendant was eighteen years and seven days old on the date of the offense. On appeal from the denial of his postconviction motion, Defendant renewed his Miller/Montgomery argument and further asked the Supreme Court to interpret Minn. Const. art. I, 5 to provide greater protection than the Eighth Amendment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because the Miller/Montgomery rule is clearly limited to juvenile offenders under the age of eighteen at the time of the offense, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant's petition for postconviction relief; and (2) Defendant forfeited appellate review of his claim under the Minnesota Constitution. View "Nelson v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals denying B.H.'s petition for a writ of prohibition asking that the district court be prohibited from enforcing its written order stating that she was required to provide her cell phone to defense counsel, holding that the district court's order denying B.H.'s motion to quash was unauthorized by law and that the issuance of the writ was necessary to prevent irremediable harm to B.H.After the State charged Defendant with third-degree criminal sexual conduct the district court granted Defendant's motion for a subpoena requiring B.H., the alleged victim of the sexual assault, to produce her cell phone to a computer forensic expert hired by Defendant. B.H. filed a motion to quash the subpoena. The district court denied the motion and ordered B.H. to produce her phone to defense counsel or Defendant's expert. B.H. filed a petition for a writ of prohibition, which the court of appeals denied. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that when it failed to analyze whether compliance with the subpoena was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances the district court committed an error of law for which no other adequate remedy exists and which would result in irremediable harm to B.H. View "State v. Yildirim" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court awarding taxable costs for denying a first-party insurance claim in violation of Minn. Stat. 604.18, subd. 2(a), holding that the district court did not clearly err.After a bench trial, the district court found that Western National Mutual Insurance Company did not have a reasonable basis for denying Alison Joel Peterson's claim for insurance benefits and acted in reckless disregard of its lack of a reasonable basis in denying the claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not clearly err in determining that a reasonable insurer, who had the information that Western National had, would not have denied Peterson's claim for benefits; and (2) the district court did not clearly err by finding that Western National knew, or recklessly disregarded information that would have allowed it to know, that it lacked an objectively reasonable basis for denying benefits to Peterson. View "Peterson v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court and the court of appeals concluding that Minn. Stat. 609.27 subd. 1(4) was constitutionally overbroad and could not be saved through a narrowing construction or by severing part of it, holding that subdivision 1(4) criminalizes a substantial amount of protected speech and is thus unconstitutional on its face.Defendant was charged with one felony count of attempted coercion under section 609.275, the attempted coercion statute. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the statute was overly broad in violation of the First Amendment. The district court granted the motion to dismiss, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Minn. Stat. 609.27 subd. 1(4) is substantially overbroad and cannot be narrowed or saved by severance and therefore must be invalidated as violating the First Amendment. View "State v. Jorgenson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the portion of the court of appeals' decision reversing in part Defendant's convictions, holding that the district court did not violate Minn. Stat. 609.04 when it convicted Defendant of both an electronic solicitation offense and an electronic distribution offense and did not violate Minn. Stat. 609.035 when it sentenced Defendant on both the electronic solicitation conviction and an attempted third-degree sexual assault conviction.Defendant was convicted of attempted third-degree criminal sexual conduct, electronically soliciting a child to engage in sexual conduct, and electronically distributing any material, language, or communication that relates to or describes sexual conduct to a child. The court of appeals reversed in part, holding that the district court violated section 609.04 and section 609.035. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the State presented sufficient evidence to support the attempt conviction; (2) the offense of electronic solicitation necessarily includes the offense of electronic distribution; and (3) the State proved that the electronic solicitation conviction and the attempted third-degree sexual assault conviction were not part of a single behavioral incident. View "State v. Degroot" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for of first-degree premeditated murder and attempted first-degree premeditated murder but reversed Defendant's 360-month sentence for attempted first-degree premeditated murder, holding that the sentence was error because it exceeded the statutory maximum.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant's pretrial motion to suppress his post-Miranda statements; (2) the jury instruction on the elements of premeditated murder was not erroneous, and the district court did not err by failing to give a jury instruction on accomplice testimony; and (3) because the statutory maximum for the offense of attempted first-degree premeditated murder is 240 months, Defendant's sentence on this offense is remanded for resentencing. View "State v. Ezeka" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals defining AIM Development, LLC's nonconforming-use rights on a property containing a facility for nonhazardous, non-toxic industrial waste based on the terms of a state permit in effect at the time that it purchased the property, holding that a property owner's nonconforming-use rights are defined by the uses lawfully existing at the time of the adverse zoning change.In 2013, AIM Development purchased the property containing the waste facility, which had operated as a nonconforming use since 1989. At issue was the scope of AIM Development's nonconforming-use rights and whether the waste facility may accept waste from more than one source. Based on the terms of a state permit in effect when AIM Development purchase the property the court of appeals determined that the facility was limited to accepting waste from a recently demolished paper mill. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the court of appeals erred in defining the scope of the nonconformity by the state permit; and (2) accepting waste from more than one source does not, standing alone, constitute an impermissible expansion of AIM Development's nonconforming-use rights. View "AIM Development (USA), LLC, Appellant, v. City of Sartell" on Justia Law

In this case brought by two associations against the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) arising out of alleged mismanagement of the groundwater-appropriation permitting process, the Supreme Court held that the two associations stated a claim under Minn. Stat. 116B.03 and that one of the associations failed to state a claim under the public trust doctrine.Two associations brought this suit against the DNR, alleging violations of the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act under section 116B.03 based on alleged pollution and impairment of White Bear Lake. The associations alleged that the DNR mismanaged the groundwater-appropriations permitting process, resulting in the lake's water levels reaching historic lows. One of the associations added a claim that the DNR had violated the common-law public trust doctrine. The district court found that the DNR had violated by section 116B.03 and the public trust doctrine. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the court of appeals (1) erred in concluding that the associations did not state a claim under section 116B.03; and (2) did not err in concluding that the one association failed to state a claim under the public trust doctrine. View "White Bear Lake Restoration Ass'n, ex rel. State v. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's petition to voluntarily terminate her parental rights to her two young children after Grant County filed a petition for involuntary termination, holding that a parent's voluntary petition does not supplant a county's petition for involuntary termination of parental rights.After the County filed a petition for involuntary termination of Appellant's parental rights to her two children. Three days before trial, Appellant filed a petition for voluntary termination of her parental rights to her children for good cause. The district court denied the voluntary petition, finding that Appellant did not demonstrate good cause for the termination. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the plain language Minn. Stat. 260C.301 shows that the Legislature did not contemplate that a parent's petition for voluntary termination would automatically supplement an earlier-filed involuntary petition. View "In re Welfare of Children of J.D.T." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court determining that Appellant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel failed under the second prong of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), holding that, even if Appellant had offered to plead guilty to second-degree murder, Appellant made no showing that there was a reasonable probability that the State would have entered into a plea agreement.A jury found Appellant guilty of first-degree murder while committing child abuse, second-degree felony murder, and second-degree manslaughter. Appellant later filed a postconviction motion, alleging that her counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to recommend that she plead guilty to second-degree murder and by failing adequately to inform her about the power of the State's case. The district court concluded that Appellant had satisfied the first but not the second prong of Strickland. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, even assuming that defense counsel's recommendation could have persuaded Appellant to make a qualifying offer, Appellant failed to show that any such offer would have been accepted by the State and presented to the court. View "Peltier v. State" on Justia Law