EN BANC CALENDAR

Before the Minnesota Supreme Court

February 2023

SUMMARY OF ISSUES

Summaries prepared by the Supreme Court Commissioner’s Office

Monday, January 30, 2023

Supreme Court Courtroom, State Capitol Building, Second Floor


Commissioner of Revenue, Relator, vs. CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp., dba CenterPoint Energy Minnesota Gas, aka CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco, Respondent – Case No. A22-1069Respondent CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp dba CenterPoint Energy Minnesota Gas, aka CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco (Minnegasco), brought a challenge in tax court to the Commissioner of Revenue’s January 2018 and January 2019 tax valuations of a gas distribution pipeline Minnegasco operates.Following trial, the tax court reduced the unit-value of Minnegasco’s pipeline for both years, which the Commissioner has challenged in an appeal to the supreme court.

Both parties, as well as the tax court, recognized that valuation is governed by Minnesota Rule 8100, which requires both an income approach and a cost approach to valuation. With respect to the income approach, the tax court largely rejected the testimony and opinions offered at the valuation hearing by the Commissioner’s expert—who offered higher appraisal values than the original Commissioner assessments—in favor of the testimony offered by Minnegasco’s expert and the Commissioner’s position in the original assessments. This included criticism by the tax court—which it grounded in Rule 8100—of the Commissioner’s expert’s rejection of the very betas used by the Commissioner in the publicly-available capitalization rate studies upon which the original assessments were based. As for the cost approach, the tax court concluded—consistent with Minnegasco’s expert and contrary to the Commissioner’s experts—that the pipeline suffered from external obsolescence, i.e., a property’s loss in value due to factors beyond the property’s physical boundaries and the owner’s control.

On appeal to the supreme court, relator’s brief presents the following issues:(1) whether the tax court erred as a matter of law in its interpretation of Rule 8100’s Discretionary Paragraph as a basis to disregard the Commissioner’s expert’s capitalization rate opinions from its consideration; (2) whether the tax court erred as a matter of law by shifting the burden to the Commissioner to contradict Minnegasco’s prima facie showing of external obsolescence; and (3) whether the tax court clearly erred in its external obsolescence conclusions. (Minnesota Tax Court)

State of Minnesota, Appellant, vs. Michael Bruce Tapper, Respondent – Case No. A22-0161: Law enforcement officers responded to a 911 call and encountered a visibly upset and injured woman in the hallway of an apartment building. The woman told the officers that her husband, respondent Michael Tapper, had physically attacked her inside of their apartment but she refused to leave the building because her children were inside of the apartment with her husband. Tapper was charged with misdemeanor domestic assault.When the case was called for trial, the prosecutor informed the district court that the victim was not cooperating with law enforcement and was unwilling to testify. The prosecutor asked for the victim’s statements to be admitted into evidence through a recording from an officer’s body camera. The district court granted Tapper’s request to suppress the victim’s statements on the body camera recording because there was no ongoing emergency to justify the admission of the statements as nontestimonial or excited utterances. The State filed an interlocutory appeal. The court of appeals affirmed the district court.

The supreme court granted review on the following issue: whether State v. Davis, 820 N.W.2d 525 (Minn. 2012), stands for the proposition that a declarant must show some physical manifestation of stress for the statements to qualify as an excited utterance and not as testimonial under the Confrontation Clause. (Hennepin County)

Tuesday, January 31, 2023

Supreme Court Courtroom, State Capitol Building, Second Floor

 

Bryan Leslie Franklin, Appellant, vs. Drew Evans, Superintendent, Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, Respondent – Case No. A21-1378In 2009, appellant Bryan Franklin was charged with multiple crimes, including kidnapping, based on allegations that he and another person forced entry into a residence, held the homeowner captive, and then left with stolen items. Franklin agreed to plead guilty to second-degree assault, and the other charges were dismissed by the State. Franklin’s sentence included the condition that he register as a predatory offender under Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 1b (2022).

In 2020, Franklin filed a civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against respondent Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) alleging that requiring him to register as a predatory offender violates his constitutional right to due process, the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, and the common-law doctrine of laches. The BCA filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The district court found that the statute of limitations period had expired in 2015 and dismissed Franklin’s claims with prejudice. The court of appeals affirmed.

The supreme court granted review on the following issue: whether the predatory offender registration requirement is a continuing violation that tolls the statute of limitations. (Ramsey County)

Paul Herlache, Appellant, vs. Amy Rucks, Respondent – Case No. A21-1427Appellant Paul Herlache and respondent Amy Rucks began a romantic relationship in 2012. Eventually Herlache moved in with Rucks in her home and began paying rent to her; she had purchased the home in 2011 with the intention of renovating it. During the time Herlache was living in the house with Rucks, he made substantial financial contributions to its improvement in an amount of approximately $280,000 over and above the rent he had agreed to pay. Although at one point the couple became engaged, the relationship ended in 2018. Herlache approached Rucks about repayment for his contributions to the improvements.She wrote him a check for $1,500 and cut off further contact.

Herlache then sued Rucks, on claims including unjust enrichment.While the case was pending, Rucks sold the home for $1.2 million. Following a bench trial, the district court found that Herlache had made financial contributions “directly to or on behalf of” Rucks, and that she would be unjustly enriched if she retained the benefits of his contributions. The district court entered judgment in favor of Herlache in an amount of $282,736.02. In a split decision, the court of appeals reversed in relevant part the district court’s award of damages on Herlache’s unjust enrichment claim and remanded.

The supreme court granted review on the following issue: whether a party is barred from recovering proven unjust enrichment related to “investments to real property” in every case unless that party presents evidence that (1) the real estate’s value increased in an amount equal to or greater than the amount of the contributions the party provided to make improvements, and (2) any increase in the real estate’s value was fully attributable to those contributions. (Dakota County)

 

Wednesday, February 1, 2023

Supreme Court Courtroom, State Capitol Building, Second Floor

 

State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Abraham Isaac Bell, Appellant– Case No. A20-1638Appellant Abraham Bell was charged with first-degree aggravated robbery. The case proceeded to a jury trial on June 20, 2020. The courtroom was closed to the public over Bell’s objection because of the COVID-19 pandemic, but the public was allowed to view the trial in a different courtroom via live streaming.A jury found Bell guilty. The court of appeals affirmed Bell’s conviction.

The supreme court granted review on the following issue: whether Bell’s right to a public trial was violated when there was no means for two-way video observation between the trial participants and the public. (Scott County)

 

Thursday, February 2, 2023

Supreme Court Courtroom, State Capitol Building, Second Floor

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: S.B.G., Parent – Case No. A22-0589: S.B.G.’s parental rights were terminated because he is required to register as a predatory offender. In August 2019, when he was 20 years old, S.B.G. engaged in electronic communications with a 15-year-old girl that were sexual in nature. He was charged with five counts under Minn. Stat. § 609.352, subd. 2a (2022), which criminalizes electronic communications with children “with the intent to arouse the sexual desire of any person.” One of the charged counts was specifically listed as one for which registration as a predatory offender is required under Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 1b(a)(2)(v) (2022). S.B.G., however, pleaded guilty to one of the other counts. This still required that S.B.G. register as a predatory offender because the registration statute requires registration if “the person was charged with . . . a violation of . . . any of the following and convicted of . . . that offense or another offense arising out of the same set of circumstances.” Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 1b(a)(2) (2022).

Three months after his guilty plea, the mother gave birth to a child. The county petitioned to adjudicate the child as in need of protection or services, which led the county to determine the child’s biological father. S.B.G. provided a DNA sample, which showed a 99.99% probability he was the biological father, although his legal parentage was not formally adjudicated. The county then petitioned the district court to terminate S.B.G.’s parental rights under Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(9) (2022), which authorizes the termination of parental rights if a parent has been convicted of a crime listed in section 260.012(g)(1)–(5), with section 260.012(g)(5) referring to “an offense that requires registration as a predatory offender under section 243.166, subdivision 1b, paragraph (a) or (b).” The district court terminated S.B.G.’s parental rights on this basis.

The court of appeals affirmed. It first concluded that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the petition seeking to terminate S.B.G.’s biological parental rights even if S.B.G.’s parentage had not been formally adjudicated.The court of appeals also held that evidence that the parent must register as a predatory offender under Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 1b(a) or (b) is sufficient to trigger the statutory basis for termination under Minn. Stat. § 260C.301, subd. 1(b)(9).

 

The supreme court granted review on the following issues: (1) whether a district court has subject matter jurisdiction to terminate the parental rights of a person who has no parental rights; and (2) whether the phrase “an offense that requires registration as a predatory offender under section 243.166, subdivision 1b, paragraph (a) or (b)” in Minn. Stat. § 260.012(g)(5) means, in addition to the offenses enumerated in section 243.166, subd. 1b, “another offense arising out of the same set of circumstances.”(Nobles County)

Minnesota Voters Alliance, et al., Appellants, vs. Office of the Minnesota Secretary of State, Respondent – Case No. A22-0111: Appellants Minnesota Voters Alliance, et al., petitioned for a declaratory judgment action in the court of appeals. Appellants challenged the validity of Minnesota Rule 8210.2450, subparts 2 and 3 (2021) (the challenged rule), which address the duties of ballot board members when examining the signature envelopes of absentee ballots and determining whether to accept or reject absentee ballots. Appellants argued the challenged rule conflicts with Minnesota Statutes section 203B.121, subdivision 2(b)(1) through (3) (2022), such that appellants cannot comply with both.The court of appeals declared the challenged rule valid.

The supreme court granted review on the following issues: (1) whether Minnesota Rule 8210.2450, subpart 2, exceeds the Secretary of State’s statutory authority because the rule makes it impossible for ballot board members to comply with the requirement in Minnesota Statutes section 203B.121, subdivision 2(b)(1), to confirm that “the voter signed the certification on the envelope”; and (2) whether Minnesota Rule 8210.2450, subpart 3, exceeds the Secretary of State’s statutory authority because the rule makes it impossible for ballot board members to comply with the requirement in Minnesota Statutes section 203B.121, subdivision 2(b)(3), to “ compare the signature provided by the applicant to determine whether the ballots were returned by the same person to whom they were transmitted” in certain circumstances. (Court of Appeals)