Justia Minnesota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

At issue in this case was whether Defendant committed burglary when he entered another guest’s hotel room without that guest’s consent and committed a crime in that room.The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding Defendant guilt of first-degree burglary. On appeal, Defendant argued that the State failed to prove the essential element of burglary that he entered a building without consent. Specifically, Defendant argued that, as a paying guest at the hotel, he had consent to enter the hotel building and, therefore, could not commit burglary while in the hotel. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that when Defendant entered the victim’s hotel room he exceeded the scope of his consent to be present in the hotel building. Therefore, the evidence was sufficient to sustain Defendant’s conviction. View "State v. Lopez" on Justia Law

The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination does not protect a person from being ordered to prove a fingerprint to unlock a seized cellphone.The police lawfully seized a cellphone from Defendant and attempted to execute a valid warrant to search the cellphone, which had a fingerprint-scanner security lock that prevented the search. When Defendant refused to block the cellphone with his fingerprint the district court ordered Defendant to provide his fingerprint so the police could search the cellphone’s contents. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that providing a fingerprint was not privileged under the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because providing the fingerprint elicited only physical evidence from Defendant and did not reveal the contents of his mind, no violation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination occurred. View "State v. Diamond" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction for first-degree premeditated murder, holding that there was no abuse of discretion.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court abused its discretion when it (1) declined to excuse a juror who, after the trial began, realized that she knew a witness and had been exposed to news coverage of the shooting; and (2) improperly excluded reverse-Spreigl alternative-perpetrator evidence. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to remove the juror at issue from the jury; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the reverse-Spreigl evidence. View "State v. Curtis" on Justia Law

Applying Minn. R. Civ. P. 6.02 to extend the lis pendens deadline in Minn. Stat. 582.043(7)(b) is prohibited because to do so would impermissibly modify the substantive rights provided by the statute.The Supreme Court answered in the negative a question certified to it by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit as to whether the lis pendens deadline may be extended upon a showing of excusable neglect under Rule 6.02. At issue was whether the lis pendens recording requirement was procedural or substantive in nature. The Supreme Court held that to extend the lis pendens deadline using Rule 6.02 would be an impermissible intrusion into matters of substantive law. View "Litterer v. Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC" on Justia Law

Appellant BCBSM, Inc. (“Blue Cross”) denied respondent James Linn’s insurance claim because the requested treatment was not considered medically necessary under the parties’ health-plan contract. After Blue Cross denied the claim, an external-review entity determined that the treatment was, in fact, medically necessary for Linn’s condition. Blue Cross paid the claim, but Linn and his wife sued Blue Cross for breach of contract. The district court granted summary judgment for Blue Cross, concluding that the treatment was not medically necessary under the contract’s plain terms and that Blue Cross fulfilled its contractual obligations when it paid for the treatment following the external review. The court of appeals reversed. Because the Minnesota Supreme Court concluded: (1) external-review decisions were independent determinations of medical necessity that did not supersede contractual definitions of medical necessity; and (2) the health-plan contract plainly excluded coverage for Linn’s claim for treatment, the Court reversed. View "Linn v. BCBSM, Inc." on Justia Law

Appellant Emile Rey pleaded guilty to one count of identity theft involving eight or more direct victims. The district court ordered Rey to pay the mandatory-minimum restitution of $1,000 to each of his 66 direct victims, totaling $66,000. Rey appealed, asserting that the mandatory-minimum restitution he was ordered to pay violated his procedural and substantive due process rights and was an unconstitutional fine. The court of appeals affirmed. Rey asked the Minnesota Supreme Court to declare the statute unconstitutional, vacate the restitution order, and remand the matter for a restitution hearing or a Blakely trial. The Court declined, and affirmed the restitution order. View "Minnesota v. Rey" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant’s convictions of first-degree premeditated murder and second-degree intentional murder in connection with the stabbing death of Defendant’s girlfriend, holding that Defendant was entitled to a new trial because his defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by conceding the only disputed elements of the charged offenses without Defendant’s consent. Specifically, the court held (1) defense counsel conceded Defendant’s guilt to first-degree premeditated and second-degree intentional murder; and (2) Defendant was entitled to a new trial because he did not acquiesce in that concession. View "State v. Luby" on Justia Law

Under the totality of the circumstances of this case, the police did not violate the Fourth Amendment when, during their execution of a warrant to search a home, they searched a purse that belonged to a guest at the home.Defendant was charged with third-degree controlled-substance crime for possessing methamphetamine. Defendant moved to suppress the methamphetamine found in her pursue, arguing that the search violated the Fourth Amendment because the search of her purse was beyond the scope of the search warrant. The district court denied the motion. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, taken together, the facts showed that the search of Defendant’s purse was reasonable, and therefore, the search did not violate her Fourth Amendment rights. View "State v. Molnaux" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the order of the Commissioner of Human Services, which affirmed the determination by the Minnesota Department of Human Services that Yasmin Salim wrongfully obtained public assistance for Kind Heart Daycare, Inc. in violation of Minn. Stat. 256.98(1)(3). Kind Heart had submitted bills to Blue Earth County under the state’s Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP) representing that children from low-income families were present at Kind Heart when they were, in fact, absent or no longer enrolled in the daycare. The Department disqualified Salim from providing daycare services and revoked Kind Heart’s license. The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the Commissioner erred in determining that Salim and Kind Heart were not entitled to CCAP payments; and (2) any errors on the part of the Department or the Commissioner were corrected, independently re-evaluated, or harmless. View "In re Appeal by Kind Heart Daycare, Inc." on Justia Law

After the Governor, on May 30, 2017, vetoed line-item appropriations to the Legislature for its biennial budget, the Legislature commenced this action arguing that the line-item veto power cannot be used over the appropriations to itself without violating the Separation of Powers clause. The Governor argued in response that the line-item veto power is expressly conferred on the Executive under Minn. Const. IV, 23. The district court agreed with the Legislature, concluding that the line-item vetoes were unconstitutional under Minn. Const. art. III. The Supreme Court reversed in part and vacated and remanded in part, holding (1) the line-item vetoes did not violate article IV, section 23; (2) the line-item vetoes did not violate Article III by effectively abolishing the Legislature; and (3) this court declined to decide whether those vetoes nonetheless violated Article III as unconstitutionally coercive because the parties failed to resolve their dispute throughout the legislative process contemplated by the Constitution. View "Ninetieth Minnesota State Senate v. Dayton" on Justia Law