Justia Minnesota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the postconviction court summarily denying Defendant's petition for postconviction relief arguing that counsel provided ineffective assistance and that an expert witness for the State provided unreliable testimony at trial, holding that the postconviction court did not err.Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction on direct appeal. Defendant later filed a petition for postconviction relief, which the postconviction court summarily denied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant's claims were either meritless or time-barred. View "Odell v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of aiding and abetting first-degree murder, holding that any error in the proceedings below was harmless.Specifically, the Court held (1) the district court's admission of Spreigl evidence of three other-crimes incidents was not an abuse of discretion; (2) the testimony of Defendant's accomplice was sufficiently corroborated; (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it twice denied Defendant's motion for a continuance to review newly produced evidence; (4) the district court abused its discretion when it sustained a relevance objection to a question during the cross examination of a police investigator, but the error was harmless; and (5) Defendant's pro se claims were without merit. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

In this case filed by a bus driver who sought reimbursement for chiropractic services related to her work-related injury the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals to reinstate Plaintiff's arbitration award after the district court vacated the award, holding that a provision in the Minnesota Workers' Compensation Act, Minn. Stat. 176.83, subd. 5(c), did not bar coverage.Plaintiff's employer's workers' compensation carrier agreed to pay workers' compensation benefits to Plaintiff but refused to pay for more than twelve weeks of chiropractic care in accordance with the treatment parameters adopted for purposes of the Act. In accordance with that decision, Plaintiff's first chiropractor stopped treatment after twelve weeks of providing care. Plaintiff then received additional care from a different chiropractor. It was for this care that Plaintiff sought reimbursement from State Farm, her personal automobile no-fault insurer. State Farm denied coverage. An arbitrator ruled in favor of Plaintiff and awarded her the full amount she sought. The district court vacated the arbitrator's award, and the court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statutory prohibition on reimbursement in section 176.83, subd. 5(c) is limited to the first provider whose services the workers' compensation payer determined to be excessive. View "Rodriguez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the court of appeals reversing the decision of the district court granting summary judgment to Appellants - Someplace Safe, Inc. an advocacy organization, and Jacquelyn Jorud, Respondent's former wife - in this defamation and negligence action, holding that summary judgment was properly awarded to Someplace Safe on negligence but that the question of damages required a remand.Respondent alleged that Appellants' statements accused him of committing domestic violence. The district court granted summary judgment to Appellants on the defamation claims, concluding that the statements were protected by a qualified privilege, Respondent failed to establish a genuine issue of material face on malice, and Respondent had not shown proof of actual damages. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that Respondent provided sufficient evidence of damages and breach of duty to warrant a trial on his claims. The Supreme Court held (1) Respondent's defamation claim against Jorud must be remanded to determine whether the allegedly defamatory statements involved a matter of public or private concern; and (2) no material fact questions existed about whether Someplace Safe acted with reasonable care before publishing the allegedly defamatory statements. View "Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the postconviction court denying Appellant's petition for postconviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing, holding that the petition was untimely.Defendant was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder. The conviction was affirmed on appeal. After unsuccessfully filing a petition for postconviction relief Defendant filed this instant petition for postconviction relief alleging several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel during his trial and direct appeal. The postconviction court denied the claims without an evidentiary hearing, ruling that Defendant's claims were time-barred under the two-year statute of limitations. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the petition was properly denied because it was filed more than two years after the disposition of Appellant's direct appeal and because the facts alleged in the petition would not have satisfied any exception to the applicable statute of limitations. View "Jackson v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of first-degree felony murder, attempted first-degree felony murder, drive-by shooting (the underlying felony), and other offenses, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the drive-by shooting conviction and that the prosecutor did not engage in prosecutorial misconduct.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he discharged a firearm "at or toward" a building or vehicle and that the prosecutor committed prosecutorial misconduct when she argued in rebuttal that Defendant's closing argument was trying to play on the jury's emotions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that Defendant discharged a firearm "toward" a building; (2) the prosecutor did not commit misconduct; and (3) Defendant's remaining pro se arguments were without merit. View "State v. Waiters" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals concluding that two Minnesota statutes - Minn. Stat. 609.749, subd. 2(6), the stalking-by-mail provision, and Minn. Stat. 609.795, subd. 1(3), the mail-harassment statute - are constitutional under the First Amendment, holding that both statutes are facially overbroad.A.J.B. was found guilty of gross-misdemeanor stalking by use of the mail, misdemeanor harassment by use of the mail, and felony stalking. The court of appeals affirmed A.J.B.'s adjudications for stalking by mail and mail harassment, thus rejecting his constitutional challenges. On appeal, A.J.B. argued that his adjudications under the stalking-by-mail provision and mail-harassment statute must be vacated as contravening the First Amendment. The Supreme Court held (1) section 609.749, subd. 2(6), is facially overbroad and not subject to either a narrowing construction or severance of unconstitutional provisions; (2) section 609.795, subd. 1(3), is facially overbroad, but the statute can be saved through severance of the constitutionally problematic language; and (3) because it is unclear whether Defendant's adjudication of delinquency for mail-harassment is based on the severed language, Defendant's adjudication under section 609.795, subd. 1(3), is reversed and the case remanded. View "In re A.J.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's convictions for first-degree sexual conduct and domestic assault by strangulation, holding that Minn. R. Crim. P. 9.01 subs. 1-1a does not authorize an inspection of a crime scene in the control of a third party and that, even if Defendant had a constitutional right to inspect the crime scene, any error in denying that right was harmless.Before trial, Defendant filed a motion to allow his counsel and investigator to enter his former residence to inspect and photograph the crime scene. The district court denied the motion. The court of appeals held that Defendant had a right under Rule 9.01, subs. 1-1a, to inspect the crime scene but was not entitled to a new trial because the denial of his motion to inspect was harmless. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Rule 9.01, subs. 1-1a, does not allow the State to allow a defendant to inspect a crime scene that is the control of a third party; and (2) even if assuming Defendant had the constitutional inspection rights he asserted here, any error in denying his motions to inspect the property was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Lee" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals upholding the district court's ruling that the admission of statements made by Defendant using a foreign language interpreter did not violate the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution or hearsay rules, holding that the Confrontation Clause was not violated in this case and that the statements were not subject to the hearsay rules.The district court convicted Defendant of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and sentenced him to 144 months in prison. Defendant appealed, arguing that the admission of his translated statements violated the Confrontation Clause and hearsay rules. The court of appeals upheld the district court's ruling that the court's admission of the interpreter's translated statements were proper. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the translated statements did not violate the Confrontation Clause and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the translated statements into evidence over the hearsay objection by Defendant. View "State v. Lopez-Ramos" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held in this eviction action that, under the circumstances of this case, the retaliation defense was not available under Minn. Stat. 504B.441 but that the common law should recognize a defense when a landlord retaliates against a tenant for making a good-faith complaint to the landlord of a material violation of a local or state law, residential covenants, or the lease.By special verdict, a jury found that Tenant materially violated the terms of the lease but that Landlord retaliated against Tenant as a penalty for complaining about the condition of the leased premises. The district court entered judgment for possession of the rental unit in favor of Tenant apparently based on the retaliation defense under Minn. Stat. 504B.285, subd. 2, and Minn. Stat. 504B.441. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the retaliation defense was unavailable to Tenant under either statutory provision. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) Tenant could not assert a statutory defense; but (2) the language of the verdict was adequate to satisfy the requirements of the common-law retaliation defense that the Court recognized today. View "Central Housing Associates, LP v. Olson" on Justia Law