EN
BANC CALENDAR
Before
the Minnesota
Supreme Court
November 2007
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
Summaries
prepared by the Supreme Court Commissioner’s Office
Monday, October 29, 2007, 9:00 a.m.
Supreme Court
Courtroom, State Capitol
State
of Minnesota, Respondent
vs. Jermaine Ferguson, Appellant – Case No. A06-498 and Jermaine Ferguson,
petitioner, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A07-1125:
Jermaine Ferguson’s direct appeal of his conviction of first-degree
murder and attempted first-degree murder and appeal of the denial of his
petition for postconviction relief have been consolidated before the supreme
court. At issue on direct appeal are
whether the district court erred in limiting during trial Ferguson’s
cross-examination of a co-conspirator about the specific reduction in sentence
she received under the terms of her plea agreement and whether the testimony of
Ferguson’s
co-conspirators was uncorroborated. Also
at issue is whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Ferguson’s petition for postconviction relief, without a
hearing, based on a statement made by a witness at Ferguson’s trial to an investigator recanting
his testimony at trial. (Hennepin County)
Susan
Dunn, et al., Appellants vs. National Beverage Corp., a Delaware corporation,
et al., Respondents, DTM Distributing, Inc., Defendant – Case Nos. A06-396 and
A06-397: A jury found that respondent National Beverage
Corporation breached its franchise agreement with appellant Home Juice Citrus
Products Mid-West, Inc., a company owned by appellants Susan Dunn and Richard
Newstrom, and terminated Home Juice’s franchise rights without good cause in
violation of the Minnesota Franchise Act, Minn. Stat. ch. 80C (2006). The jury awarded appellants monetary damages
for breach of the franchise agreement but not for respondent’s violation of the
franchise act. Appellants then sought an
award of their attorney fees under Minn. Stat. § 80C.17, subd. 3 (2006). The district court denied appellants’ request
for attorney fees; the court of appeals affirmed on grounds that an award of
attorney fees under section 80C.17 requires that the party seeking fees
have sustained “actual damages” under the statute itself. On appeal to the supreme court, the issue is
whether an award of damages for violation of the Franchise Act is required for an
award of attorney fees under section 80C.17.
(Dakota County)
Tuesday, October 30, 2007, 9:00 a.m.
Supreme Court
Courtroom, State Capitol
State
of Minnesota,
Respondent vs. Jeffrey David Mohs, Appellant – Case No. A06-199:
When appellant Jeffrey Mohs did not appear for his felony jury trial,
the district court issued a “body only” bench warrant for him that did not
specify bail. Officers executing the
bench warrant observed Mohs discarding what proved to be methamphetamine and
arrested him. Mohs appeared in court
within 36 hours of his arrest, and bail was set. Mohs moved to suppress the methamphetamine on
grounds that the bench warrant the officers were executing was constitutionally
defective because it was issued without an oath or affirmation and because it
did not specify bail. Both the United
States Constitution and the Minnesota Constitution provide that “[n]o warrant
shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.” Under Article I, Section 7 of the
Minnesota Constitution, bail is to be available in all cases except “capital
offenses.” The motion to suppress was
denied and Mohs was found guilty of possession on the basis of stipulated
facts. The court of appeals affirmed the
denial of the motion to suppress. The
question before the supreme court is whether a bench warrant based on the
district court’s personal knowledge, rather than on a oath or affirmation, and
that did not provide for the defendant’s release on bail is
unconstitutional. (Anoka County)
State
of Minnesota,
Respondent vs. Toyie Diane Cottew, Appellant – Case No. A06-785: Appellant Toyie Cottew was convicted of
fourth-degree driving while impaired and placed on probation. Cottew did not comply with the terms of her
probation and the district court ordered her to serve five days in jail
and five days of electronic home monitoring as a consequence. The district court did not make any findings as
to whether Cottew’s probation violations were inexcusable or intentional or as
to whether the need for confinement outweighed the policies favoring probation,
as required in State v. Austin, 295
N.W.2d 246, 250 (Minn. 1980), before probation may be
revoked. The court of appeals
affirmed. The issue before the supreme
court is whether the district court must make findings as to the Austin
factors before imposing intermediate sanctions for probation violations that
fall short of revoking probation entirely. (Aitkin County)
Wednesday, October 31, 2007, 9:00 a.m.
Supreme Court
Courtroom, State Capitol
State
of Minnesota,
Respondent vs. Dirk Lionel Goelz, Appellant – Case No. A06-2424: On appeal from his conviction of first-degree
domestic abuse murder of his girlfriend, appellant Dirk Goelz presents the
following issues for review: (1) whether
Goelz is entitled to a new trial because the district court erred in admitting
evidence of an order for protection filed by Goelz’s ex-wife against him,
Goelz’s alleged violation of that order for protection, and Goelz’s faked suicide
to prove a pattern of domestic abuse; and (2) whether the district court
erred when it denied Goelz’s motion to dismiss the grand jury indictment
because the indictment was based on inadmissible evidence on the existence of a
pattern of domestic abuse and on Goelz’s character and because the evidence
that was admissible was insufficient to support the indictment. (Renville County)
John
Wesley Hebert, et al., Respondents vs. City of Fifty Lakes,
Appellant – Case No. A06-215: Respondents collectively own six lots that
abut a gravel road in the City of Fifty Lakes.
Respondents’ properties are registered under the Torrens
statute. The gravel road was platted in 1954
but was not constructed as platted.
Rather, when the gravel road was constructed in about 1971 it encroached
on each of respondents’ lots. In 2005,
respondents sued the city seeking a declaration that the city had no right to
any portion of their properties and seeking to eject the city from their
properties. The district court dismissed
respondents’ complaint on grounds that the construction of the gravel road
constituted a taking by the city that deprived respondents of legal possession
of the land and therefore barred respondents’ claims for ejectment and
trespass. The district court further
concluded that respondents’ claim for inverse condemnation was barred by the
applicable 15-year statute of limitations under Minn. Stat. § 541.02 (2006). The court of appeals reversed and reinstated
respondents’ complaint on grounds that the city’s encroachment was more akin to
a temporary intrusion than to a de facto taking. The questions before the supreme court are whether
the construction of the gravel road constituted a taking and what, if any,
statute of limitations applies to respondents’ claims.
Thursday, November 1, 2007, 9:00 a.m.
Supreme Court
Courtroom, State Capitol
Joshua
Rechtfertig, Relator vs. Michael Spiering, Uninsured, Respondent, and St. Mary’s
Duluth Clinic Health System and JC Christensen/Radiological Associates,
Intervenors, and Special Compensation Fund, Respondent – Case No. A07-1306: Respondent
Michael Spiering hired relator Joshua Rechtfertig on an hourly basis to help
him build a garage. After working on the
garage for about a month, Rechtfertig fell from the roof and was injured; he
filed a claim for workers’ compensation.
Under Minn. Stat. § 176.041, subd. 1(k) (2006), an
injury to “a person whose employment at the time of the injury is casual and
not in the usual course of the trade, business, profession, or occupation of
the employer” is not covered by workers’ compensation. The compensation judge found that
Rechtfertig’s employment was not “casual” within the meaning of the statute,
but the workers compensation court of appeals reversed. At issue before the supreme court is whether
Rechtfertig’s work for Spiering was “casual.” (Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals)
EN BANC NONORAL: Guy James Hathaway, petitioner, Appellant vs.
State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A07-1188: Petitioner
pro se Guy Hathaway was convicted in 1984 of first-degree murder in the
death of a hospital security guard who was also an off-duty police officer; his
conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
State v. Hathaway, 379 N.W.2d
498 (Minn.
1985). The district court denied Hathaway’s
second petition for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, Hathaway presents the following
issues for the supreme court’s review:
(1) whether he was denied due process in the denial of his first
postconviction petition because he was denied the right to be present during
the hearing on the petition; (2) whether he received effective assistance
of counsel at trial and in connection with his first postconviction petition;
(3) whether references to the victim during trial as a “police officer” or
“officer” were misleading and highly prejudicial; and (4) whether he
should have been granted an evidentiary hearing on his second postconviction
petition because of newly-discovered evidence.
(Ramsey County)
Monday, November 5, 2007, 9:00 a.m.
Courtroom
300, Minnesota
Judicial Center
Auto
Owners Insurance Company, Respondent vs. Chong Suk Perry, Appellant – Case No.
A06-1235: Daniel Savage was killed in an auto accident
in 2005. At the time of his death,
Savage owned a home and joint bank account with appellant Chong Suk Perry, who
was financially dependent on him for support.
Perry sought survivors benefits under the automobile policy covering
Savage at the time of his death. The
policy defined “dependent” as the deceased’s surviving spouse and minor
children. Under Minn. Stat. § 65B.44,
subd. 6 (2006), a decedent’s spouse and minor children who live with
the decedent at the time of death are presumed to be dependents for purposes of
survivors benefits. The statute further
provides that “[q]uestions of the existence and the extent of dependency shall
be questions of fact, considering the support regularly received from the
deceased.” The district court denied
survivors benefits to appellant Perry; the court of appeals affirmed. The question before the supreme court is
whether survivors economic loss benefits are limited by statute to a decedent’s
spouse and dependent children. (Scott County)
HealthEast,
Relator, and University of Minnesota Physicians, intervenor, Relator vs. County
of Ramsey, Respondent – Case No. A07-1086: Relator HealthEast owns
the Bethesda Clinic, which it leases to relator
University of Minnesota Physicians. On relators’ appeal from a judgment of the
Minnesota Tax Court, the issue before the supreme court is whether the clinic
property is exempt from real property taxation under Minn.
Stat. § 273.19 (2006) because it is tax-exempt property leased
to a “benevolent society or institution.”
(Tax Court)
Tuesday, November 6, 2007, 9:00 a.m.
Courtroom
300, Minnesota
Judicial Center
In
re the Estate of: Francis E. Barg, a/k/a
Francis Edward Barg – Case No. A05-2346: Dolores and Francis Barg
held their homestead in joint tenancy during their marriage. In 2001, Dolores transferred her
interest in the homestead to her husband, Francis, and entered a nursing home. Between 2001 and her death in 2004,
Dolores received medical assistance benefits.
Five months after Dolores’ death, Francis died. Federal law allows the county to recover
medical assistance benefits paid to an individual over age 55 “from the
individual’s estate” after the death of the surviving spouse. 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(b)(1)(B), (b)(2) (2000). Minnesota Statutes § 256B.15, subd. 2 (2006),
allows the county to recover benefits paid for Dolores from Francis’s estate but
limits the county’s claim to “the value of the assets of the estate that were
marital property or jointly owned property at any time during the marriage.” The probate court allowed only a portion of
the county’s claim equal to the value of a life estate in the homestead. The court of appeals reversed, limiting the
amount to be paid on the county’s claim to the value of an undivided
half-interest in the homestead. At issue
before the supreme court are: (1) whether
Dolores had any interest in the homestead at the time of her death; and (2) if
Dolores had an interest in the homestead at the time of her death, how to value
that interest. (Mille Lacs County)
State
of Minnesota,
Appellant vs. Tavon Tarrell Timberlake, Respondent – Case No. A06-72: Police received a report that an unidentified
passenger in a car leaving a service station was seen with a gun. Police stopped the car and found a gun under
the passenger seat. The passenger,
respondent Tavon Timberlake, is ineligible to possess a firearm. Timberlake moved to suppress evidence of the
gun; his motion was denied and he was convicted after a jury trial. Timberlake appealed his conviction and the court
of appeals reversed. The issue before
the supreme court is whether, even if officers reasonably believed that someone
in the car had a gun, officers needed reasonable suspicion that someone in the
car was engaging in criminal activity in order to justify their investigatory
stop. (Ramsey County)