EN BANC CALENDAR
Before the Minnesota Supreme Court
June
2015
SUMMARY
OF ISSUES
Summaries prepared by the Supreme Court
Commissioner’s Office
Monday, June 1,
2015
Courtroom 300,
Minnesota Judicial Center
Jane Doe 136, Appellant vs. Ralph Liebsch – Case No. A14-0275: Respondent Ralph Liebsch pleaded guilty to
criminal sexual conduct pursuant to North
Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) and State v. Goulette, 258 N.W.2d 758 (Minn. 1977). By his Alford
plea Liebsch maintained his innocence but agreed that the State of Minnesota
was likely to offer evidence at trial that would be sufficient for a jury to
convict him. Appellant Doe then
commenced the current tort action against Liebsch based on the same factual
allegations that were at issue in the criminal case. The district court granted Liebsch’s motion
to exclude evidence of his guilty plea from the jury, ruling that collateral
estoppel did not operate to bar Liebsch from denying his guilt, and further ruling
that under Minnesota Rule of Evidence 403, the probative value of the guilty
plea would be outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. The jury returned a verdict
in favor of Liebsch. The court of
appeals affirmed the district court’s ruling excluding evidence of the guilty
plea.
On appeal to the supreme court, the
issue presented is whether it is appropriate to present evidence in a civil
jury trial of a defendant’s prior Alford plea,
either as substantive evidence or for purposes of impeachment. (Washington County)
In
re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Dale Allen Hansen, a Minnesota
Attorney, Registration No. 217840 – Case No. A14-2061: An attorney discipline matter
that presents the question of what discipline, if any, is appropriate based on
the facts of the matter.
Tuesday, June 2,
2015
Courtroom 300,
Minnesota Judicial Center
State of Minnesota, Appellant vs. Miranda Lynn Jones,
Respondent – Case No. A14-1399: Respondent Miranda Jones was convicted of fourth-degree
controlled-substance crime in December 2013.
The district court stayed Jones’s sentence and placed her on supervised
probation for 10 years. Conditions of
Jones’s probation require that she refrain from using alcohol and remain
law-abiding.
During the
early hours of May 31, 2014, a Polk County deputy responded to a report that an
intoxicated female, later identified as Jones, was running down the street,
screaming, and refusing to return to her house. Jones was arrested and charged by citation
with three misdemeanors, including contempt of court, in violation of Minn.
Stat. § 588.20, subd. 2(4) (2014), which states that a person who engages in
“willful disobedience to the lawful process or other mandate of a court” is
“guilty of a misdemeanor.”
Jones filed a
motion to dismiss the contempt charge for lack of probable cause, arguing, in
part, that a probation agreement is not an “other mandate of a court.” The
district court granted Jones’s motion and dismissed the contempt-of-court
charge. The court of appeals affirmed.
On appeal to
the supreme court, the issue presented is whether a person may be charged with
misdemeanor contempt of court, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 588.20, subd.
2(4), based on an alleged violation of a condition of probation. (Polk County)
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Appellant vs.
Angela Mary Lennartson, Respondent, Katie Foss, Respondent – Case Nos. A14-0132,
A14-0224:
Respondents Angela Mary Lennartson and
Katie Foss were injured in separate automobile accidents. Each had no-fault medical coverage through
appellant State Farm. Each respondent
received no-fault medical benefits from State Farm for a time before State Farm
separately discontinued their benefits.
Lennartson and Foss were each informed of their right to seek arbitration. Instead, they separately brought negligence
suits against the drivers of the other cars involved in their actions, and each
obtained a jury award in her favor, which was then reduced by the no-fault
benefits she had already received. They
separately petitioned for no-fault arbitration against State Farm, seeking
additional economic-loss benefits, and obtained favorable arbitration
awards.
The
district court in Lennartson’s case vacated her award, reasoning that the
public policy behind the No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act, Minn. Stat. §§
54B.41-.71 (2014), prevented her from recovering the same expenses she had
already recovered in her negligence suit.
The district court in Foss’s case, however, confirmed her arbitration
award. The cases were consolidated for
appeal, and the court of appeals ruled that both awards should have been
confirmed.
On appeal to the supreme court, the
issue presented is whether respondents’ no-fault arbitrations, brought after
respondents had already litigated economic-loss damages in a negligence action,
are barred by either the No-Fault Act or collateral estoppel. (Washington County, Ramsey County)
Wednesday, June
3, 2015
Courtroom 300,
Minnesota Judicial Center
In
re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Lynne A. Torgerson, a Minnesota
Attorney, Registration No. 208322 – Case No. A13-2305: An attorney discipline matter
that presents the question of what discipline, if any, is appropriate based on
the facts of the matter.
Nonoral: Darryl Colbert, petitioner, Appellant
vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A14-2165: In
2005, a jury found appellant Darryl Colbert guilty of first-degree murder. Colbert’s conviction was affirmed on direct
appeal. Colbert has filed several prior
petitions for postconviction relief, all of which were denied.
Colbert filed a petition for postconviction
relief in 2014 and asked for a new trial.
He claimed to have newly discovered evidence and that the district court
erroneously denied a Schwartz hearing
based on alleged juror misconduct. The
district court summarily denied the petition.
On appeal to the supreme court, the following
issues are presented: (1) whether Colbert’s claims are time-barred under Minn.
Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4 (2014); (2) whether Colbert’s claims are procedurally barred
by State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246,
243 N.W.2d 737 (1976); (3) whether the district court abused its discretion in
denying Colbert’s request for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence; and
(4) whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Colbert’s
request for a new trial based on juror misconduct. (Hennepin County)
Thursday, June 4,
2015
Nonoral: Prentis Cordell Jackson, petitioner,
Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A14-2060: In 2006, a jury found appellant Prentis
Jackson guilty of first-degree premeditated murder. Jackson was 17 years old when the shooting
occurred. The district court sentenced
Jackson to a life sentence without the possibility of release. Jackson’s conviction was affirmed on direct
appeal.
In 2013, Jackson filed a petition for
postconviction relief, arguing that he was entitled to a new trial based on
recanted trial testimony from Alfred Lamar and that his sentence violated his
Eighth Amendment rights. The district
court held an evidentiary hearing, at which Lamar asserted his Fifth Amendment
rights and refused to testify. The district court ruled that prior written and
oral statements Lamar had made about his trial testimony were not admissible at
the evidentiary hearing. The district
court denied the petition.
On appeal to the supreme court, the following
issues presented are: (1) whether the district court abused its discretion in
ruling Lamar’s out-of-court statements regarding his trial testimony were not
admissible as statements against penal interest; (2) whether the district court
abused its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion for a new trial based on recanted
trial testimony; (3) whether the rule announced in Miller v. Alabama, __ U.S. __, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), applies retroactively
to Jackson’s case; and (4) whether Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 9, or Minn.
Stat. §§ 244.11, subd. 2, or 590.01, subd. 1 (2014), authorize the supreme
court to vacate Jackson’s life sentence without the possibility of
release. (Hennepin County)
Nonoral: Otha
Eric Townsend, petitioner, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case
No. A14-1970
and
Otha Eric Townsend, petitioner, Appellant vs. State of
Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A15-0158:
In 1994, appellant Otha Eric Townsend was convicted of first-degree
murder and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of release. Seven
months later, he pleaded guilty to attempted second-degree murder and was
sentenced to an additional 72 months in prison, to run consecutively to his
life sentence. The district court
granted Townsend 597 days of jail credit against his 72-month sentence. Townsend’s first-degree murder conviction was
upheld on direct appeal. Townsend has
filed several petitions for postconviction relief, all of which have been
denied.
In August 2014, Townsend filed a petition
for postconviction relief, arguing he was denied effective assistance of appellate
counsel in his direct appeal, and a motion for correction of sentence, arguing
that 373 days of custody credit should be added to his life sentence. The
district court summarily denied the petition for postconviction relief and
denied the motion for correction of sentence.
On appeal to the supreme court in Case
No. A14-1970, the following issues are presented: (1) whether Townsend’s
petition for postconviction relief is time barred under Minn. Stat. § 590.01,
subd. 4 (2014); (2) whether Townsend’s claims are procedurally barred by State v. Knaffla, 309
Minn. 246, 243 N.W.2d 737 (1976); and (3) whether Townsend was prohibited from
raising several claims in his direct appeal because of ineffective assistance
of appellate counsel.
On appeal to the supreme court in Case
No. A15-0158, the issue presented is whether the district court abused its
discretion in denying Townsend’s motion to correct his sentence. (Ramsey County)
Nonoral: State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Jerome
Deon Nunn, petitioner, Appellant – Case No. A14-1767:
In 1995, appellant Jerome Nunn was convicted of first-degree murder and
attempted first-degree murder for a July 22, 1995 shooting in which one person
was killed and another was injured. The district court sentenced Nunn to life
in prison for first-degree murder and a consecutive sentence of 180 months for
attempted first-degree murder. In April
2014, Nunn filed a motion to correct his sentence, pursuant to Minn. R. Crim.
P. 27.03, subd. 9, challenging the imposition of consecutive sentences. The district court denied the motion.
On appeal to the supreme court, the
following issues are presented: (1) whether the imposition of consecutive
sentences for first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder committed
against different victims was lawful; and (2) whether the district court abused
its discretion when it concluded that Nunn had provided no evidence to support
his claim that his right to equal protection was violated when he was
sentenced. (Hennepin County)