Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

After the first phase of a bifurcated trial on stipulated facts, Defendant was found guilty of two counts of first-degree premeditated murder. After the second phase of the bifurcated trial, in which the district court heard expert psychiatric testimony, the district court concluded that Defendant failed to establish a mental illness defense. Defendant was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of release. On appeal, Defendant challenged the rejection of his mental illness defense. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Defendant failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he did not know that his acts were morally wrong at the time of the murders. View "State v. Roberts" on Justia Law

After a second jury trial before Judge Harvey Ginsberg, Defendant was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction on direct appeal. In 2003, Defendant filed his first petition for postconviction relief. The postconviction court denied the petition. Before the Supreme Court decided the appeal from the denial of Defendant’s postconviction petition, the Court removed Judge Ginsberg from office. The Court subsequently affirmed the postconviction court’s judgment denying relief to Defendant. In 2014, Defendant filed a petition for postconviction relief based on Judge Ginsberg’s removal from office. The postconviction court denied the petition without holding an evidentiary hearing, concluding that the petition was both untimely filed and procedurally barred. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the postconviction court did not err in denying Defendant’s second petition or postconviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing where Defendant filed his petition after the expiration of the statutory two-year limitations period, and the statutory interests-of-justice exception does not apply. View "Taylor v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty pursuant to an Alford plea to fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct. Jane Doe subsequently sued Defendant, alleging that he committed sexual battery and sexual abuse based on the conduct that gave rise to the criminal charges. Prior to trial, Defendant brought a motion in limine to prevent Doe from introducing evidence of the Alford plea. The district court granted the motion, concluding that any mention of the Alford plea would be substantially more prejudicial to Defendant than probative to Doe’s case. After a jury trial, Defendant was found not liable for sexual assault and battery. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion by declining to admit Defendant’s Alford plea under Minn. R. Evid. 403; and (2) did not abuse its discretion when it did not allow Defendant’s Alford plea to be admitted for impeachment purposes. View "Jane Doe 136 v. Liebsch" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder. The Supreme Court affirmed. Appellant later filed his current petition for postconviction relief alleging that a witness had recanted his trial testimony. After an evidentiary hearing to determine the credibility of the alleged recantation, the postconviction court denied the petition, concluding that “it was not well satisfied that the trial witness’s testimony was false.” The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant failed to prove that the State substantially interfered with the decisions of Appellant’s witnesses about whether to testify at the postconviction hearing; and (2) the postconviction court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to grant use immunity to Appellant’s witnesses or by finding that Appellant presented insufficient evidence to warrant a new trial. View "McKenzie v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial in 2003, Appellant was found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of release. In 2014, Appellant filed his sixth postconviction petition, alleging newly discovered evidence, juror misconduct, and that cumulative errors required a new trial in the interests of justice. The postconviction court denied Appellant’s petition without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the postconviction court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition, as the record conclusively showed that Appellant’s claims were either harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, procedurally barred, or meritless. View "Colbert v. State" on Justia Law

In 1987, after a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder while committing criminal sexual conduct. Appellant was sentenced to life in prison. In 2014, Appellant brought a motion to correct his sentence. The postconviction court treated Appellant’s motion as a petition for postconviction relief and denied it because of Appellant’s failure to file it until after the two-year postconviction statute of limitations had expired. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the postconviction court did not abuse its discretion when it denied relief to Appellant on the grounds that the statute of limitations had expired. View "Wayne v. State" on Justia Law

An airport police narcotics investigator removed a package, which was addressed to Defendant, from a conveyor belt at the UPS mail area at the Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport, and placed the package on the floor. A trained narcotics-detection dog was brought into the area and alerted to the package. Based on the dog’s alert, an airport police narcotics investigator obtained a warrant authorizing him to open and search the package, which contained cocaine and methamphetamine. Appellant was charged with two counts of a first-degree controlled substance crime. Appellant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the movement of the package to the floor constituted a seizure, that the dog sniff constituted a search, and that the package was seized and searched without a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity. The district court denied Petitioner’s motion, concluding that the detention and dog sniff did not constitute a search or seizure. The court of appeals affirmed on other grounds, determining that there was both a search and a seizure but that there was reasonable, articulable suspicion for both. The Supreme Court affirmed on the same basis as the district court, holding that there was neither a search nor a seizure under the facts of this case. View "State v. Eichers" on Justia Law

Appellant was charged with, and pleaded guilty to, first-degree murder while committing domestic abuse. The district court accepted Appellant’s guilty plea, convicted him, and sentenced him to life imprisonment with the possibility of release. Appellant later filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, asserting that enforcing his guilty plea was manifestly unjust because the plea was not accurate, intelligent, or voluntary. The postconviction court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed. Appellant then filed a second postconviction petition, alleging that his guilty plea was inaccurate and that the attorney who represented him on his first postconviction petition provided ineffective assistance. The postconviction court denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the postconviction court (1) did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that Appellant’s challenge to his guilty plea was procedurally barred; and (2) did not abuse its discretion when it summarily denied Appellant’s ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel claim because the petition and records conclusively showed that Appellant was not entitled to relief. View "Lussier v. State" on Justia Law

Police officers followed a Chevrolet Monte Carlo that drove away from a house suspected of hosting drug trafficking. The officers subsequently stopped the vehicle after learning that the Monte Carlo’s registration had been revoked and that it was registered to Defendant, whose driver’s license had also been revoked. The driver, who was identified as Defendant, indicated that the car was not insured. The officers decided to tow and impound the vehicle. During an inventory search, the officers found drug and drug paraphernalia in a purse on the passenger seat of the Monte Carlo. Defendant was charged with possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, aruing that the initial stop was lawful but that the search was unconstitutional because the police were not authorized to impound the vehicle, and the inventory search itself was pretextual. The district court denied the motion. The court subsequently found Defendant guilty on both counts. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the impoundment was unreasonable, and therefore, the resulting inventory search was unconstitutional. View "State v. Rohde" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with third-degree assault. Defendant’s defense theory was that he acted in self-defense during a hallway confrontation with a non-resident of his apartment building. Before the case was submitted to the jury, the district court instructed the jury that Defendant had a duty to retreat if reasonably possible before acting in self-defense. A jury subsequently found Defendant guilty of third-degree assault and the lesser included offense of fifth-degree assault. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant had a duty to retreat if reasonably possible while in a non-exclusive hallway of his apartment building. View "State v. Devens" on Justia Law