Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the opinion of the court of appeals reversing Defendant's convictions for driving after cancellation-inimical to public safety (DAC-IPS) based on the conclusion that Minn. Stat. 171.24, subd. 5 is unenforceable on private property, holding that the statute is enforceable on private property.Defendant, whose license was cancelled as inimical to public safety, was charged with DAC-IPS after a law enforcement officer observed him drive a motor vehicle down a private driveway. Defendant filed a motion to suppress and to dismiss the complaint for lack of probable cause. The district court denied the motions. The district court subsequently found Defendant guilty. The court of appeals reversed, ruling that the DAC-IPS requires a license only when a vehicle is operated on a street or highway. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the DAC-IPS statute is enforceable in private property; and (2) the district court properly denied Defendant's motions to suppress and dismiss, resulting in restatement of Defendant's convictions. View "State v. Velisek" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part Defendant's convictions for first-degree premeditated murder and second-degree assault-fear, holding that the district court committed reversible error when it relied on the doctrine of transferred intent.The Supreme Court remanded the matter, holding that the district court (1) did not violate the accomplice-corroboration statute, Minn. Stat. 634.04, when it found that Defendant committed the murder with premeditation; (2) did not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence Defendant proffered to impeach one of the State's witnesses; but (3) committed reversible error by relying on the doctrine of transferred intent to find Defendant guilty of second-degree assault-fear. View "State v. Spann" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing this lawsuit brought by Appellants seeking a declaration "that individuals are restored to civil rights and possess the fundamental right to vote guaranteed by [Minn. Const. art. VII] by virtue of being released or excused from incarceration following a felony," holding that there was no error.At issue before the Supreme Court was (1) whether Minn. Const. art. VII, 1 requires that a person convicted of a felony be restored to the right to vote upon being released or excused from incarceration; and (2) whether Minn. Stat. 609.165 is contrary to the fundamental right to vote or to equal protection protections under the state Constitution. The Supreme Court held (1) under article VII, section 1, a person convicted of a felony cannot vote in Minnesota unless his or her right to vote is restored in accordance with an affirmative act or governmental mechanism restoring the person's right to vote; and (2) section 609.165 does not violate the fundamental right to vote, and there was insufficient evidence to prove that the statute violates the Minnesota Constitution's equal protection principle. View "Schroeder v. Simon" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the opinion of the court of appeals affirming the decision of the district court to allow a witness to testify using live, two-way remote view technology during a jury trial in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, holding that Defendant's right to confrontation was not violated in the proceedings below.During Defendant's jury trial on a third-degree sale of a controlled substance charge, the district court allowed one of the State's witness to testify via Zoom because she had been exposed to COVID-19 and was forced to quarantine. Defendant appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the two-part test set forth in Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990), is the appropriate test to assess whether a Confrontation Clause violation under the federal or state constitutions; and (2) Defendant's right to confrontation under the federal and state constitutions when the district court permitted the witness to testify using remote view technology under the circumstances of this case. View "State v. Tate" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court dismissing this complaint brought by patients (collectively, Patients) in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP), holding that the district court erred.Patients were ordered by the Minnesota Commitment Appeals Panel (CAP) to be transferred to Community Preparation Services (CPS), which would have been a reduction in custody. CAP issued Patients' transfers orders, but the orders did not provide a specific date by which the transfers to CPS should occur. State officials did not transfer Patients, and about two years after the transfer orders were issued Patients filed petitions for a writ of mandamus demanding that the transfers be effectuated. The state officials filed motions to dismiss, arguing that qualified immunity shielded them from liability. The district court granted the motions to dismiss, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the state officials had a clear obligation to execute the CAP transfer orders within a reasonable period of time; and (2) remand was required. View "McDeid v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court summarily denying Defendant's second petition for postconviction relief, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition without holding an evidentiary hearing.After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of first-degree felony murder and attempted first-degree premeditated murder, among other crimes. Defendant later filed the postconviction petition at issue, asserting that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to a trial before an impartial jury and that his trial counsel and appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance. The district court summarily denied the petition as time barred and procedurally barred. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it summarily denied Defendant's second postconviction petition as untimely. View "White v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it summarily denied Appellant's eighth petition for postconviction relief as untimely.Appellant was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder under an aiding and abetting theory of liability. In his eighth petition for postconviction relief, Appellant invoked the time-bar exception for newly discovered evidence, relying on an affidavit of one of his codefendants. The district court summarily denied the petition as untimely based on its determination that the statements in the affidavit were not newly discovered. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it summarily denied Appellant's postconviction petition. View "El-Shabazz v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's motion under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 to vacate the denial of his first postconviction petition and the district court's denial of his second postconviction petition, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Appellant's motion and second petition.Defendant was found guilty of first-degree premeditated murder, first-degree aggravated robbery and other crimes. The district court imposed a life sentence without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal and also affirmed the denials of Defendant's first postconviction petition and his motion to correct his sentence. At issue on this appeal was the district court's denial of his motion to vacate the denial of his first postconviction petition and the denial of his second postconviction petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant's claims were time-barred under the postconviction statute. View "Blue Earth County v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of first-degree premeditated murder, attempted first-degree premeditated murder, and kidnapping, holding that any error in the proceedings below was harmless.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) any error on the part of the district court in failing to hold a hearing on the foundational reliability of cell-site location information (CSLI) evidence was harmless, and the district court was not required to hold a hearing to determine whether the CSLI evidence was generally accepted in the relevant community; (2) the district court did not err in trying Defendant's and his codefendant's cases together; and (3) Defendant was not prejudiced by the district court's denial of his request for an additional peremptory challenge. View "State v. Berry" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for first-degree premeditated murder, attempted first-degree murder, and kidnapping, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the district court erroneously joined his and his codefendant's cases for trial and by denying subsequent severance motions. The Supreme Court affirmed his convictions, holding (1) the district court did not improperly join Defendant's and his codefendant's cases for trial and did not erroneously refuse to sever the cases once the trial was underway; (2) the prosecutor did not commit misconduct during closing arguments; and (3) Defendant was not entitled to relief as to the claims he raised in a pro se supplemental brief. View "State v. Davis" on Justia Law