EN BANC CALENDAR

Before the Minnesota Supreme Court

June 2014

SUMMARY OF ISSUES

Summaries prepared by the Supreme Court Commissioner’s Office

Monday, June 2, 2014

Courtroom 300, Minnesota Judicial Center

Cedar Bluff Townhome Condominium Association, Inc., Respondent vs. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant – Case No. A13-0124: Appellant American Family Mutual Insurance Company insured respondent Cedar Bluff Townhome Condominium Association. As a result of a storm, the siding on all 20 townhome buildings in the Association sustained some hail damage. An appraisal panel determined that the amount of loss consisted of the cost of replacing all of the siding on all of the buildings—even siding that sustained no damage—because an exact color match was not available for the replacement siding. The Association sought confirmation of the appraisal award, but the district court concluded that American Family is not obligated to pay to replace siding that did not experience “direct physical loss or damage” or pay for siding that provides an exact color match to the original siding. The court of appeals reversed and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of the Association in an amount consistent with the appraisal award.

On appeal to the supreme court, the issues presented are (1) whether an insurer whose coverage obligation is limited to paying for direct physical loss or damage to covered property is required to pay to replace siding that did not sustain any physical loss or damage; and (2) whether an insurer who agreed to pay the cost to replace damaged property with property of “comparable material and quality” is required to replace all of the siding on the insured’s buildings because the replacement siding would not exactly match the color of the existing siding. (Dakota County)

State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Daniel Joseph Devens, Appellant – Case No. A12-2065: Respondent State of Minnesota charged appellant Daniel Devens with third-degree assault for an incident that occurred in the hallway of his secured apartment building with a guest of another resident of the building. At trial, Devens claimed that he acted in self-defense. Over his objection, the district court’s jury instructions on self-defense included the duty to retreat. The jury found Devens guilty of third-degree assault. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction.

On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether the duty to retreat applies when a defendant claims to have acted in self-defense in a common hallway of his or her secured apartment building against a guest of another resident of the building. (Waseca County)

Tuesday, June 3, 2014

Courtroom 300, Minnesota Judicial Center

State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Mahdi Hassan Ali, Appellant – Case Nos. A12-0173, A13-0996: Based on an attempted robbery that resulted in three deaths at the Seward Market in Minneapolis, a jury found appellant Mahdi Hassan Ali guilty of three counts of aiding and abetting first-degree felony murder, two counts of second-degree murder, and one count of aiding and abetting first-degree premeditated murder. The district court imposed two consecutive life sentences and a consecutive life-without-release sentence. Appellant’s direct appeal was stayed so that he could file a petition for postconviction relief, which asserted that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction based on new evidence that appellant was 15 years old on the date of the offense. Following a hearing, the district court denied the petition.

On appeal to the supreme court, the issues presented are (1) whether the district court erred in denying appellant’s petition for postconviction relief, which challenged the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court; (2) whether the district court imposed an unconstitutional, mandatory life-without-release sentence; (3) whether the entire sentence should be reversed in light of Miller v. Alabama, __ U.S. __, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), and whether the district court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences; and (4) whether the district court violated appellant’s right to a fair trial by allowing police testimony that impliedly identified appellant as the gunman in a video and by allowing the testimony of forensic analysts comparing video and still images. (Hennepin County)

In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Linda A. Brost, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 182692 – Case Nos. A13-2307: An attorney discipline case that presents the question of what discipline, if any, is appropriate based on the facts of the matter.

Wednesday, June 4, 2014

Courtroom 300, Minnesota Judicial Center

State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Nisius Dealvin McAllister, Appellant – Case No. A13-1801: Following a jury trial, appellant Nisius Dealvin McAllister was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and first-degree felony murder in connection with the killing of Michael McMillan during the commission of a robbery. Before trial, the district court denied appellant’s motion to suppress custodial statements that he made to police investigators, rejecting his argument that the statements were obtained after he had unambiguously invoked his right to remain silent.

On appeal to the supreme court, the issues presented are (1) whether the district court erred by admitting appellant’s custodial statements to police investigators; and (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to support appellant’s convictions of first-degree premeditated murder and first-degree felony murder. (Hennepin County)

State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Eddie Matthew Mosley, Appellant – Case No. A13-1914: Following a court trial, appellant Eddie Matthew Mosley was convicted of three counts of first-degree premeditated murder, three counts of first-degree murder while committing a felony, and three counts of first-degree murder while committing a felony while in possession of a firearm in connection with the deaths of DeLois Brown and her parents James Bolden and Clover Bolden in Brooklyn Park.

On appeal to the supreme court, the issues presented are (1) whether the in-court identification of appellant by a witness should have been excluded because its prejudicial effect substantially outweighed its probative value; (2) whether appellant was deprived of his constitutional right to present a complete defense by the district court’s denial of his motion to present expert evidence on the topic of eyewitness identifications; and (3) whether the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct by eliciting damaging character evidence. (Hennepin County)

Thursday, June 5, 2014

Courtroom 300, Minnesota Judicial Center

State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Jose Arriaga Soto, Jr., Appellant – Case No. A13-0997: Appellant Jose Soto pleaded guilty to first-degree criminal sexual conduct. At the sentencing hearing, Soto made a motion for a downward dispositional sentencing departure, which the district court granted. On appeal, the State claimed that the district court erred when it granted the dispositional departure. The court of appeals reversed and remanded for imposition of an executed 144-month sentence.

On appeal to the supreme court the issue presented is whether the record supports the district court’s sentencing departure. (Polk County)

Nonoral: LumiData, Inc., Relator vs. Commissioner of Revenue, Respondent – Case No. A14-0254: Respondent Commissioner of Revenue assessed relator LumiData with additional sales tax, penalties, and interest on LumiData’s sales of a retail point-of-sale software program. LumiData objected to the assessment, arguing that its software was a custom-designed product, rather than “prewritten computer software” within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 297A.61, subd. 17 (2012). In addition, LumiData objected to the assessment of late filing and payment penalties, arguing that it reasonably relied on the advice of its accountant in deciding that its software sales were not subject to tax. After a trial, the tax court rejected LumiData’s arguments and upheld the Commissioner’s tax order.

On appeal to the supreme court, the issues presented are (1) whether the tax court correctly decided that LumiData made taxable software sales; and (2) whether the tax court correctly decided that the Commissioner properly imposed penalties for late filing and late payment. (Minnesota Tax Court)

Monday, June 9, 2014

Courtroom 300, Minnesota Judicial Center

State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Corey Joel Eichers, Appellant – Case No. A13-0121: An airport police officer working at a UPS parcel sorting facility noticed a package on the conveyor belt addressed to appellant Corey Eichers. The officer thought the package was suspicious for several reasons, including its point of origin and its shipment person-to-person by next-day air. The officer removed the package from the belt, placed it on the floor with two dozen other parcels, and had a narcotics-detection dog sniff the group of packages. The dog alerted on the package addressed to Eichers. The package was subsequently found to contain a large amount of cocaine and methamphetamine. The discovery of the controlled substances led to Eichers’ conviction of first-degree controlled substance crime.

On appeal to the court of appeals, Eichers argued that the contents of the package should have been suppressed because the officer seized, and searched, the package without probable cause to believe it contained contraband. The court of appeals panel split three ways: two judges ruled that the seizure was not unconstitutional, though they differed in their reasoning; the third judge dissented.

On appeal to the supreme court, the issues presented are (1) whether the removal of a package from an airport conveyor belt in order to conduct a narcotics dog sniff is a “seizure” under the United States and Minnesota Constitutions; (2) whether a narcotics-dog sniff of the exterior of an air freight package is a “search” under the Minnesota Constitution; and (3) whether the officer’s seizure and search of the package was supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion that it contained contraband. (Stearns County)

In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Larry S. Severson, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 99363 – Case No. A13-1382: An attorney discipline case that presents the question of what discipline, if any, is appropriate based on the facts of the matter.

Wednesday, June 11, 2014

Courtroom 300, Minnesota Judicial Center

State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Mo Savoy Hicks, petitioner, Appellant – Case No. A12-1107: Appellant Mo Savoy Hicks was convicted of second-degree felony murder for the killing of Judy Rush. The trial court sentenced Hicks to 420 months in prison, which was twice as long as the presumptive sentence set by the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines. The court held that Hicks’ concealment of Rush’s body after the killing—her body was not found until four years after her disappearance—constituted particular cruelty, which justified the enhanced sentence. The court of appeals affirmed the sentence.

On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether a murderer’s concealment of the victim’s body, without more, constitutes particular cruelty sufficient to support an aggravated durational sentencing departure. (Anoka County)

Nonoral: Frank Duane Lussier, petitioner, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A14-0312: In 2003, appellant Frank Duane Lussier fatally stabbed his wife. He later pled guilty to first-degree murder while committing domestic abuse. The district court denied appellant’s first petition for postconviction relief, which claimed that his guilty plea was invalid because it lacked a proper factual foundation, and this court affirmed. The district court subsequently denied this petition for postconviction relief, which claimed ineffective assistance of appellate counsel based on the failure to request an evidentiary hearing in connection with appellant’s first postconviction petition.

On appeal to the supreme court, the issues presented are (1) whether appellant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; (2) whether the decision of appellate counsel to decline an evidentiary hearing in connection with appellant’s first postconviction petition violated appellant’s right to fundamental fairness; and (3) whether the standard of harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt applies to appellant’s claim. (Beltrami County)