Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s conviction for two counts of theft by false representation, holding that, even assuming that the trial court’s omission of the phrase “with intent to defraud” from the jury instructions on the elements of theft by false representation was error, the error was harmless. Appellant's convictions were based on her acts of submitting timesheets and receiving payments for personal care assistant services that she did not perform. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions, concluding that, when viewed as a whole, the district court’s jury instructions fairly and adequately explained the law. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that any alleged error in the jury instructions was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Schoenrock" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Appellant’s conviction of first-degree driving while impaired, holding that Appellant’s 2005 gross-misdemeanor conviction of criminal vehicular operation was not a qualified prior impaired driving incident and was therefore improperly used to enhance Appellant’s offense to a first-degree crime. Appellant’s current offense of driving while impaired was enhanced to a first-degree crime based on the existence of three prior impaired-driving convictions, including the 2005 conviction at issue. The court of appeals affirmed, ruling that Appellant’s current offense was properly charged and adjudicated as a first-degree crime because his 2005 conviction was a qualifying offense. In reversing the court of appeals, the Supreme Court held that the evidence was insufficient to convict Appellant of first-degree driving while impaired because, under the plain language of Minn. Stat. 169A.03, subd. 20, Appellant’s 2005 criminal vehicular operation conviction did not qualify as a prior impaired driving conviction. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

Minn. R. Evid. 1101 requires application of the Minnesota Rules of Evidence to restitution hearings.After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of aggravated forgery. At a restitution hearing, Defendant objected to the admissibility of certain e-mails on hearsay grounds. The trial court overruled the objection, concluding that the Rules of Evidence did not apply. The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s evidentiary rulings, concluding that the evidentiary rules do not apply to restitution hearings because the obligation to pay restitution is a part a sentence and the Rules of Evidence do not apply to sentencing proceedings. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Rules of Evidence apply to all cases and proceedings unless the rules provide otherwise, and because the language of rule 1101(b)(3) does not preclude their application to restitution hearings, the Minnesota Rules of Evidence apply to such hearings. View "State v. Willis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s first-degree murder conviction in connection with the death of his two-year-old niece.This appeal followed from Defendant’s third trial, which involved the same five counts of murder as Defendant’s second trial. The jury found Defendant guilty of five counts of murder. The district court sentenced Defendant on the first count - first-degree murder while committing criminal sexual conduct - imposing the mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of release. The Supreme Court affirmed but remanded to the district court for correction of the sentencing order, holding (1) two alleged errors in the district court’s evidentiary rulings did not affect the verdict; (2) the prosecutor did not commit plain error during closing argument; (3) the alleged errors, when considered cumulatively, did not deny Defendant a fair trial; and (4) the district court’s sentencing order erroneously stated that Defendant was convicted of all five murder charges. View "State v. Fraga" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with two counts of second-degree intentional murder. Defendant filed a petition to plead guilty to both counts, but the petition was denied based on the State’s notice, right before the guilty-plea hearing, of its intent to seek a grand-jury indictment on first-degree murder charges. Thereafter, a grand jury returned an indictment charging Defendant with six counts of first-degree murder. The State dismissed the second-degree murder charges. Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of first-degree premeditated murder and one count of first-degree murder while committing a burglary. Defendant filed a petition for postconviction relief requesting that he be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea and instead plead guilty to the original second-degree murder charges. The postconviction court denied the petition without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the postconviction court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant’s petition for postconviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing because Defendant failed to establish that withdrawal was necessary to correct a manifest injustice. View "Dikken v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to terroristic threats. As part of the factual basis for his plea, Defendant admitted that he posted five threatening tweets directed at law enforcement officers. Defendant filed a motion for a downward durational sentencing departure, which was warranted by his remorse, his intoxication, and the less serious nature of social media threats. The district court granted Defendant’s request. The Supreme Court vacated Defendant’s sentence and remanded to the district court for further proceedings, holding (1) Defendant’s “mental state” was not a proper reason to impose a downward durational sentencing departure; (2) the record did not reflect any offense-related remote that would provide an alternative ground to support the downward durational sentencing departure; and (3) the circumstances surrounding Defendant’s use of a social media platform to publish his threats did not mitigate his culpability. View "State v. Rund" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of possession of a firearm by an ineligible person. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. The State petitioned for review, arguing that the court of appeals erred in its application of law and asking the Supreme Court to abandon the separate standard of review for convictions based on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court of appeals correctly applied the law and properly found that the State presented insufficient evidence to support Defendant’s conviction; and (2) the State has not established a compelling reason for the court to overrule an approximately century-old rule governing the review of convictions based on circumstantial evidence. View "State v. Harris" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder committed for the benefit of a gang. The Supreme Court affirmed. The day before the postconviction statute of limitations expired, Appellant filed his second petition for postconviction relief and, over the next six months, filed various addenda and attachments to his second petition. Appellant also filed a third petition raising additional claims and filed a motion requesting re-testing of certain trial evidence. Without holding an evidentiary hearing, the postconviction court denied both petitions and Appellant’s other requests, determining that his claims were untimely filed or procedurally barred, or failed on the merits. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that each of the claims Appellant raised in his second and third petitions for postconviction relief, as well as the claims raised in the addenda to the second petition, failed. View "Brown v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant, a juvenile offender, challenged the district court’s imposition of three consecutive sentences of life imprisonment with the possibility of release after thirty years on each sentence for his three murder convictions. Appellant argued, among other things, that the rule announced in Miller v. Alabama and clarified in Montgomery v. Louisiana should apply to his case because his consecutive sentences were, in the aggregate, the functional equivalent of life imprisonment without the possibility of release. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) this court declines to extend the Miller/Montgomery to include Appellant or other similarly situated offenders because the United States Supreme Court has not squarely addressed the issue of whether consecutive sentences should be viewed separately when conducting a proportionality analysis; and (2) Appellant’s three consecutive sentences do no unfairly exaggerate the criminality of his conduct. View "State v. Ali" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction for first-degree felony murder rendered after a jury trial. The district court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment with the possibility of release after thirty years. Specifically, the Court held (1) the State presented sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing of the victim occurred while Defendant was attempting to commit an aggravated robbery; and (2) the district court did not commit plain error by failing to include language requiring a causal relationship between the killing and the attempted robbery in the jury instruction on first-degree felony murder. View "State v. Webster" on Justia Law