Appellate Courts >
Court of Appeals >
Court of Appeals Opinions >
Court of Appeals Published Opinions
Appellate Courts will begin transmitting all notices, orders, and opinions electronically.
Beginning no later than July 1, 2011, the appellate courts will send notices, orders, opinions and correspondence related to pending cases to attorneys in those cases by e-mail rather than postal mail. All attorneys with pending appellate cases who have not already registered an e-mail address should do so immediately. Unrepresented parties with pending appellate cases may also participate in this e-notification system by registering an e-mail address. Please go to http://www.mncourts.gov/?page=156 for instructions how to register your e-mail address.
DECISIONS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
FILED MONDAY, MAY 20, 2013
A12-1671 April Aase, Appellant, vs. Wapiti Meadows Community Technologies & Services, Inc.
individually and d/b/a Community Technologies and Services, et al., Respondents.
Mower County District Court, Hon. Fred Wellmann.
Discharging an employee because her spouse accepted a position with a competitor is a violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act's (MHRA) ban on discrimination based on the identity, situation, actions, or beliefs of a spouse, as defined in Minn. Stat. §§ 363A.02, subd. 1(1), .03, subd. 24 (2012), and is therefore not a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for an adverse employment decision for purposes of the second step of McDonnell Douglas.
Reversed and remanded. Judge Jill Flaskamp Halbrooks.
A12-2012 State of Minnesota, Appellant, vs. Guillermo Garcia-Gutierrez, Respondent;
Armando NMN Araiza, Respondent; Aidan James Heine Mellgren,
Respondent; Terry Darnell Gilliam, Jr., Respondent; Jamie David
Scott County District Court, Hon. Patrice K. Sutherland.
To prove the crime of first-degree burglary—possession of a dangerous weapon under Minnesota Statutes section 609.582, subdivision 1(b) (2012), the state must prove that a defendant knowingly possessed a dangerous weapon.
Affirmed. Judge Margaret H. Chutich.
A12-1133 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Timothy Ayman Bakdash, Appellant.
Hennepin County District Court, Hon. Stephen D. Swanson.
1. Under the doctrine of transferred intent, when a defendant acts with the intent to cause the death of a specific victim, but instead contemporaneously causes death or injury to unintended victims, the defendant is guilty of specific-intent crimes relating to the death or injury of the unintended victims. So long as the state proves that the defendant intended to cause the death of a person, the doctrine of transferred intent applies regardless of whether the defendant succeeds in causing death or harm to the intended victim, the intended victim is specifically identified, or the state brings charges against the defendant relating to the intended victim.
2. Because transferred intent is incorporated into the statutory charges of first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder, an indictment is not constructively amended when the state advances transferred intent as a theory at trial but not before the grand jury.
3. A defendant is not entitled to full disclosure of grand jury transcripts beyond the disclosure required by Minn. R. Crim. P. 18.04, subd. 2, absent a showing of a particularized need.
Affirmed. Judge Carol A. Hooten.
OPINIONS ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING IN ADOBE PDF FORMAT
The Adobe Reader must be used to view or print the opinions.
Click here to download Adobe Reader free of charge.