Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction, following a jury trial, of gross-misdemeanor indecent exposure, holding that an individually who willfully and lewdly exposes himself in the privately-owned, partially-enclosed backyard of his home has done so in a "in any place where others are present" within the meaning of the indecent-exposure statute, Minn. Stat. 617.23, subd. 1.After he was convicted, Defendant filed a petition for postconviction relief, arguing that the State failed to prove that he was in a "public place, or in any place where others are present" within the meaning of the statute. The district court denied the petition, concluding that Defendant's actions occurred in a public place. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the privately-owned, partially-enclosed backyard of a home satisfies the "place" element of the indecent-exposure statute. View "Fordyce v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court granting Defendant's motion to suppress evidence discovered in the vehicle that Defendant was driving, holding that the totality of the circumstances supported probable cause to search the vehicle.Law enforcement initiated a traffic stop after receiving a tip from an informant that a male in possession of a firearm was in the vehicle Defendant was driving. The district court granted Defendant's motion to suppress the firearm on the grounds that the officers lacked probable cause to search the vehicle. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the State met its burden and established probable cause to search the vehicle that Defendant was driving. View "State v. Mosley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting Defendant postconviction relief by ordering a substantive sentencing hearing, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, it would be manifestly unfair for the district court not to hold a substantive sentencing hearing in accordance with State v. Warren, 592 N.W.2d 440 (Minn. 1999).After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder. Defendant was seventeen years old when he committed the offenses. The district court sentenced Defendant to two consecutive sentences of life in prison without the possibility of release. After Miller v. Alabama, 467 U.S. 460 (2012), was decided, the district court resentenced Defendant to two consecutive sentences of life in prison with the possibility of release after thirty years. The Supreme Court affirmed. Defendant subsequently filed his postconviction petition requesting a substantive hearing to consider whether, pursuant to the test articulated in Warren, his modified sentences should be served concurrently rather than consecutively. The district court granted the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the unique circumstances of this case warranted the exercise of this Court's inherent supervisory powers to direct that the district court hold a substantive sentencing hearing in accordance with Warren. View "State v. Thompson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction of felony domestic assault-harm under Minn. Stat. 609.2242, subds. 1(2), 4, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.On appeal, the court of appeals concluded that the district court erred by instructing the jury that Defendant could use reasonable force to resist an "assault against the person" rather than to resist any "offense against the person" but that the error was not plain and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) use of nonlethal self-defense under section 609.06, subd. 1(3) requires a person to resist an offense carrying the threat of bodily harm; (2) the district court's use of the phrase "assault against the person" in the jury instruction at issue was not error; and (3) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction. View "State v. Lampkin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court summarily denying Appellant's petition for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing, holding that Appellant was conclusively entitled to no relief on his claims even if the facts alleged were proven by a preponderance of the evidence.Appellant, who was imprisoned for first-degree premeditated murder, filed a petition seeking postconviction relief and an evidentiary hearing, arguing that he was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of appellate counsel in his direct appeal. The district court summarily denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the postconviction petition without an evidentiary hearing. View "Woodard v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first-degree premeditated murder and his sentence of life in prison without the possibility of release, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not violate Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation when it admitted the victim's dying declarations into evidence during the jury trial, and this Court reaffirms that dying declarations are an exception to the Confrontation Clause; (2) the district court did not violate Defendant's Fifth Amendment right to counsel by denying Defendant's motion to suppress his statements to police officers because Defendant validly waived his invoked right to counsel; and (3) there was no reasonable possibility that the admission of Spreigl evidence related to a prior assault charge into evidence significantly affected the verdict. View "State v. Buchan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals denying Defendant's motion for a new trial, holding that the record was insufficient to determine whether Defendant's right to a public trial was violated due to restrictions put in place by the district court arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.In December 2019, Defendant was charged with first-degree aggravated robbery. Because of the restrictions placed on trials due to the pandemic the county submitted a trial plan that excluded all spectators from the courtroom but included a one-way video feed that would broadcast the trial in an adjacent courtroom. The trial court overruled Defendant's objection, and the trial proceeded. After Defendant was convicted he moved for a new trial. The court of appeals denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that additional findings were required on the decision to close the courtroom before it could be determined whether Defendant's public trial right was violated. View "State v. Bell" on Justia Law

In this interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court granting Defendant's motion to suppress statements recorded on a body-worn camera, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the statements should be suppressed.In response to a domestic disturbance 911 call law enforcement officers found A.H. locked out of her apartment while Defendant was inside, and A.H. told the officers that Defendant had assaulted her both in the present and in the past. These statements were recorded by an officer's body-worn camera. Defendant was subsequently charged with one count of misdemeanor domestic assault. The district court granted Defendant's motion to suppress the body-worn camera recording on the grounds that their admission would violate Defendant's constitutional right to confrontation. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion in determining that A.H.'s statements did not qualify as excited utterances under Minn. R. Evid. 802(2); and (2) properly suppressed the statements as inadmissible hearsay. View "State v. Tapper" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction of first-degree premeditated murder and second-degree intentional murder following a jury trial, holding that the district court erred in entering a conviction for the lesser-included offense of second-degree intentional murder.After the trial, the district court entered judgment of convictions for both first-degree and second-degree murder but only imposed a sentence for the first-degree murder conviction. The Supreme Court held (1) the evidence was sufficient to prove the element of premeditation for the first-degree murder offense; (2) assuming, without deciding, that the district court erred by failing to identify a certain individual as an accomplice, the failure did not affect Defendant's substantial rights; (3) the district court did not commit any other reversible error in managing the trial and the jury instructions; and (4) the entry of a judgment of conviction for the second-degree intentional murder offense violated Minn. Stat. 609.04, subd. 1. View "State v. Gilleylen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's second petition for postconviction relief, holding that Appellant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of release. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and the denial of Appellant's initial petition for postconviction relief. Thereafter, Appellant filed another postconviction petition. The postconviction court summarily denied the petition and denied Appellant's motion to compel discovery. On appeal, Appellant argued, among other things, that his appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant was conclusively entitled to no relief. View "Allwine v. State" on Justia Law