Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

A man was found shot and killed on a snow-covered trail in Saint Louis County, Minnesota. The investigation quickly focused on three individuals: the appellant, his girlfriend, and another accomplice. Key evidence included the murder weapon, Facebook messages discussing plans to harm the victim, and DNA on the weapon matching the appellant. The girlfriend, who was an eyewitness, testified to having seen the appellant shoot the victim. Law enforcement obtained a warrant to search multiple Facebook accounts—those of the appellant, his girlfriend, and the other accomplice—uncovering messages implicating the appellant.After initially pleading guilty to first-degree murder, the appellant challenged the conviction in postconviction proceedings. The Minnesota Supreme Court in Bonnell v. State vacated the guilty plea, remanding the case for trial. Before trial, the appellant moved to suppress evidence from the Facebook searches, arguing that the warrant lacked specificity. The Saint Louis County District Court denied the motion and admitted the evidence at trial, over defense objection. The jury convicted the appellant of first-degree premeditated murder.On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of Minnesota held, as a matter of first impression, that a sender of an electronic message does not retain a reasonable expectation of privacy in a copy of the message stored in the recipient’s separate and independent account or device. Thus, the appellant’s Fourth Amendment protections were not triggered by searches of his accomplices’ Facebook accounts. However, the appellant did have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his own Facebook accounts, and the warrant authorizing those searches was invalid for lack of particularity. Despite this error, the court concluded it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the remaining evidence was overwhelming. The court also found that any errors in admitting certain prior bad acts evidence were harmless. The conviction was affirmed. View "State of Minnesota vs. Bonnell" on Justia Law

The case involves an individual who was indicted for first-degree premeditated murder following the shooting death of his wife inside their shared home. The defendant did not dispute firing the fatal shot but claimed he did so during a struggle with an alleged intruder. Evidence at trial included a 911 call from the victim moments before her death, testimony regarding the absence of forced entry at the scene, the defendant’s financial difficulties leading to imminent home foreclosure and eviction, and his statements to police about the events and his actions that morning. There was also testimony about the trajectory of the gunshot, the state of the home, and the behavior of the defendant following the incident.A Ramsey County grand jury indicted the defendant, and he pleaded not guilty, electing a jury trial. At trial in Ramsey County District Court, the defendant twice moved for a judgment of acquittal before the verdict, arguing insufficient evidence; both motions were denied using the direct-evidence standard. The jury found the defendant guilty of first-degree premeditated murder, and the district court entered a conviction and imposed a life sentence without the possibility of release.On direct appeal, the Minnesota Supreme Court considered whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and whether the district court applied the correct standard in ruling on pre-verdict motions for acquittal. The Supreme Court held that the circumstantial evidence, when viewed as a whole, supported only the inference that the defendant caused his wife’s death with premeditation and intent. The Court also held that, when ruling on motions for acquittal made and decided before a verdict is returned, a district court should apply the direct-evidence standard, even if the case relies entirely on circumstantial evidence. The conviction was affirmed. View "State of Minnesota vs. Firkus" on Justia Law

A driver backed her car into a pedestrian in a bar parking lot shortly after the bar’s closing time. When police arrived, she admitted to drinking three beers before driving. The responding officers did not observe any signs of physical impairment, and the driver successfully completed an initial horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test. Both officers expressed that they did not believe the driver was impaired, and one officer sought to administer a preliminary breath test (PBT) primarily to document his investigation. The driver initially declined the PBT but later consented after additional field sobriety tests indicated impairment; the PBT and a subsequent DataMaster test showed an alcohol concentration above the legal limit. The Commissioner of Public Safety revoked her driver’s license.The revocation was challenged in the District Court through an implied consent hearing. The court weighed all circumstances and found that, despite the absence of physical signs of impairment and the minor nature of the accident, the driver’s admission to drinking, the timing and location, and the fact she struck a pedestrian provided reasonable suspicion to request the PBT. The District Court upheld the license revocation. The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed, reasoning that the initial reasonable suspicion was dispelled by the driver’s satisfactory HGN test and lack of physical indications of impairment.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and applied a de novo standard to the District Court’s legal conclusion. The Supreme Court held that, under the totality of circumstances, the officer’s request for the PBT was supported by reasonable suspicion of impaired driving, which was not dispelled by other factors that diminished but did not conclusively negate suspicion. The Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, reinstating the revocation. View "Lorsung vs. Commissioner of Public Safety" on Justia Law

Following a single-vehicle accident in Lino Lakes, Minnesota, law enforcement officers encountered the driver, who displayed signs consistent with alcohol consumption, including slurred speech and bloodshot eyes. After a preliminary breath test yielded insufficient samples but indicated alcohol presence, the driver was transported to a hospital. A trooper obtained a search warrant and requested blood or urine samples from the driver, but none were provided. The driver was subsequently charged with second-degree test refusal and third-degree driving while impaired.The Anoka County District Court held a jury trial where both officers and the driver testified with conflicting accounts regarding the hospital interaction. At the close of trial, the driver requested a jury instruction clarifying that the State must prove actual unwillingness to submit to testing, citing precedent from State v. Ferrier. The district court denied this request, instructing the jury only that refusal must be proven. The jury convicted the driver of test refusal but acquitted on the DWI charge. On appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the district court’s instructions adequately stated the law and, even if erroneous, any error was harmless because of substantial evidence supporting refusal.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed whether the district court abused its discretion by denying the requested instruction. The Court held that when the jury is instructed that refusal must be proven, the district court does not abuse its discretion by declining to further instruct on “actual unwillingness.” The Court reasoned that the term “refuse” is commonly understood and does not require additional definition for jurors. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. View "State of Minnesota vs. Schmeichel" on Justia Law

A police officer stopped a vehicle driven by the appellant for traffic violations and discovered that his driver’s license had been canceled. During the stop, the officer smelled a strong odor of marijuana coming from the vehicle. Citing only the odor as justification, the officer conducted a warrantless search of the car. During the search, the officer found ammunition in a locked safe in the backseat. The appellant was prohibited by law from possessing ammunition and was subsequently charged with that offense, as well as with driving after cancellation.The trial court, the Scott County District Court, granted the appellant’s motion to suppress the ammunition, ruling that the search violated his constitutional rights. This ruling came after the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Torgerson, which held that the smell of marijuana alone is not sufficient to establish probable cause for a warrantless vehicle search. The State appealed. The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s decision, holding that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied because, at the time of the search, officers could reasonably have relied on existing appellate precedent that arguably permitted such searches.The Supreme Court of Minnesota, reviewing the case, rejected the application of the good-faith exception. The court held that there was no binding appellate precedent specifically authorizing warrantless vehicle searches based solely on the smell of marijuana at the time of the search, and previous Minnesota Supreme Court decisions had emphasized the need to evaluate the totality of the circumstances. The court concluded that the good-faith exception did not apply, reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. View "State of Minnesota vs. Douglas" on Justia Law

The case centers on an incident in which Lisa Dawn Oliver was arrested following a violent confrontation involving her former partner, P.L., who had custody of their daughter. After Oliver and her friend attempted to take the child from P.L.’s apartment, an argument ensued. During the altercation, Oliver was alleged to have cut P.L.’s neck with a concealed weapon and was heard threatening to kill him. P.L. required medical treatment for the wound, but the injury did not meet the statutory definition of “great bodily harm.”Initially charged with attempted second-degree intentional murder, Oliver later faced additional charges of attempted first-degree assault-harm and second-degree assault with a dangerous weapon causing substantial bodily harm. A jury acquitted her of attempted murder but convicted her of both attempted first-degree assault-harm and second-degree assault. The Dakota County District Court entered a conviction for attempted first-degree assault-harm and sentenced Oliver to 45 months in prison.The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the conviction for attempted first-degree assault-harm, holding that such an offense does not exist under Minnesota law. The majority found that the statutory scheme for assault is based on harm inflicted rather than intended, and that the specific intent required for attempt crimes conflicted with the general intent element of first-degree assault-harm. The appellate court remanded for sentencing on the lesser second-degree assault conviction.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court held that attempted first-degree assault-harm, charged under the attempt statute, is a recognized crime in Minnesota. The Court ruled there is no statutory or logical conflict between the specific intent required for attempt and the general intent required for first-degree assault-harm. The case was remanded for the Court of Appeals to consider other issues not previously addressed. View "State of Minnesota vs. Oliver" on Justia Law

A man was charged with attempted first-degree premeditated murder and unlawful possession of a firearm following a shooting in Duluth. The victim could not identify the shooter, and evidence at the scene included two guns and DNA samples. Investigators initially obtained a search warrant for DNA samples from the suspect, but after the validity of that warrant was challenged in a co-defendant’s case, the State agreed not to use any evidence obtained from it. Instead, the State sought and received a court order under a Minnesota procedural rule to collect a buccal swab (cheek swab) from the defendant for DNA analysis. This DNA evidence, along with recorded jail calls and texts from an alleged accomplice, was presented at trial. The defendant was convicted by a jury and sentenced to prison.The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the convictions, holding that the warrantless collection of the buccal swab violated constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, and that this error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also held that the defendant was not entitled to a jury instruction requiring corroboration of accomplice testimony, because the accomplice’s statements were not made under oath.Upon review, the Minnesota Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court. It held that collecting a buccal swab for DNA analysis without a warrant or a valid exception constitutes an unreasonable search under both the United States and Minnesota Constitutions. The court rejected arguments that the procedural rule or a court order could replace a warrant, and found no applicable exception to the exclusionary rule. The court also clarified that the statutory term “testimony” in Minnesota’s accomplice-corroboration statute means only statements made under oath. The Supreme Court affirmed the reversal of the convictions and remanded for a new trial. View "State of Minnesota vs. Steeprock" on Justia Law

After being involved in a head-on collision during a snowstorm, the appellant was detained by police on suspicion of driving while impaired. Law enforcement obtained a search warrant authorizing a blood test, but not a urine test. The appellant refused to submit to both the blood test (for which there was a warrant) and a urine test (for which there was not). He was subsequently charged with first-degree test refusal. The appellant moved to suppress evidence of his refusals and to dismiss the charge, arguing that the statutes required refusal of both tests to sustain a conviction and that, because there was no warrant for a urine test, his prosecution violated the Fourth Amendment.The District Court denied the appellant’s motion, concluding that the relevant statutes did not require warrants for both blood and urine tests to prosecute for test refusal. The appellant waived his right to a jury trial, and the District Court found him guilty of first-degree test refusal based on stipulated facts. On appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the statutory language required only refusal of the test authorized by the warrant and that there was no requirement for law enforcement to obtain warrants for both types of tests.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that when a warrant authorizes only one type of chemical test—either blood or urine—a person’s refusal to submit to that specific test is sufficient for a conviction under Minn. Stat. §§ 169A.20, subd. 2(2), and 171.177, subd. 2. The Court further held that a conviction for refusing a warranted chemical test does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed, though on different grounds. View "State of Minnesota vs. Lueck" on Justia Law

In September 2017, John Lacy was shot and killed in Minneapolis. Tescil Romalis Mason-Kimmons was indicted for first-degree murder and faced a potential life sentence. Surveillance footage, witness statements, and physical evidence linked Mason-Kimmons to the crime, but some witness descriptions did not match his appearance. Shortly before trial, Mason-Kimmons’s attorney stated he was unprepared and would provide ineffective assistance if forced to proceed. Mason-Kimmons subsequently pled guilty to second-degree intentional murder and received a 366-month prison sentence.After sentencing, Mason-Kimmons filed a direct appeal, which was stayed to allow him to seek postconviction relief in the Hennepin County District Court. He argued that his guilty plea was involuntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel, specifically that his attorney’s lack of preparedness pressured him into pleading guilty. The district court denied his petition without an evidentiary hearing. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of his involuntary plea claims but remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the ineffective assistance claim. After further proceedings, the district court again denied relief, finding Mason-Kimmons was not prejudiced by his attorney’s deficient advice. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding there was no reasonable probability Mason-Kimmons would have insisted on going to trial but for counsel’s advice.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on whether Mason-Kimmons was prejudiced by his attorney’s constitutionally deficient advice. The court held that there was a reasonable probability Mason-Kimmons would have gone to trial if not for his counsel’s lack of preparedness and advice to plead guilty. The Supreme Court found both prongs of the Strickland test for ineffective assistance of counsel were met, reversed the lower courts’ decisions, and remanded to allow Mason-Kimmons to withdraw his guilty plea. View "Mason-Kimmons vs. State of Minnesota" on Justia Law

A police officer applied for a search warrant for a residence based on information from a confidential reliable informant (CRI). The CRI reported that, within the previous 72 hours, they had visited the residence and observed people smoking methamphetamine and meth pipes inside. The CRI was not directed by law enforcement to visit the house and had a history of providing reliable information to the police. Based on this information, a district court judge issued a search warrant. When the warrant was executed, officers found drug paraphernalia and items testing positive for methamphetamine. The resident was charged with two drug-related offenses.The defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the warrant was not supported by probable cause. The Swift County District Court denied the motion, finding the warrant application sufficient. After a jury found the defendant guilty, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in a divided opinion. The majority held that the totality of the circumstances, including the CRI’s reliability and basis of knowledge, established probable cause, and rejected the argument that corroboration of the CRI’s tip was always required. The dissent argued that corroboration was necessary and that the lack of it meant probable cause was lacking.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case to clarify whether corroboration of a confidential reliable informant’s tip is an independent requirement for probable cause. The court held that corroboration is not an independent requirement but is always a relevant factor in the totality-of-the-circumstances analysis. Applying this standard, the court concluded that the limited, uncorroborated observations in the warrant application did not establish a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime would be found in the house at the time of the search. The court reversed the decision of the court of appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "State of Minnesota vs. Nagle" on Justia Law