Lorie Skjerven Gildea

In Evans v. State, appellant Harry Jerome Evans appealed the denial of his petition for postconviction relief following his 2005 conviction for first-degree murder of a peace officer, for which he received a sentence of life without release. The Minnesota Supreme Court had previously affirmed the conviction on direct appeal. On this appeal, Evans raised claims including newly discovered evidence suggesting that a witness had implicated another individual in the shooting, along with arguments about discovery, jurisdiction, and trial proceedings. The court affirmed the postconviction court's denial, holding that the new evidence did not entitle Evans to relief, that certain issues were waived or not properly presented, and that any error regarding access to police reports was harmless.

criminal lawprocedure

Jamie Leigh Larson was convicted under Minnesota law of aiding and abetting the first-degree premeditated murder of her boyfriend, Thomas John Cady, who was strangled by her brother Robert after the siblings discussed and planned the crime while using drugs at a hotel. Larson appealed her conviction, arguing that the trial court made erroneous evidentiary rulings that deprived her of the right to present a complete defense, gave improper jury instructions, and that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings, that any instructional errors were harmless, and that witness testimony about Larson's recruitment of others, her driving the victim away from the hotel, and her post-crime statements provided sufficient direct evidence of her intentional aid. The court rejected Larson's claims that the State relied only on circumstantial evidence or that third-party perpetrator evidence was improperly excluded.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved the first-degree murder conviction of Robert Vincent Larson for the 2003 strangling death of Thomas John Cady, Jr. in Ramsey County, Minnesota, based on evidence that Larson and his sister Jamie planned and carried out the killing using zip strips after an altercation at a hotel involving drugs and prior violence by Cady. The jury convicted Larson after hearing testimony from multiple witnesses about the planning, the drive to the crime scene, and the aftermath, and he received a mandatory life sentence. On appeal, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that any errors in admitting evidence about the voluntary or compelled nature of DNA samples from Larson and alleged alternative perpetrators were harmless and did not substantially influence the verdict.

criminal law

This case concerned whether a Drake v. Ryan partial release agreement between the Booths and firefighter Ryan Gades, along with his primary insurer Progressive for $50,000, fully discharged Gades from liability for a 2006 car accident when the referenced excess policy from Auto-Owners did not actually cover him, or whether it only limited the sources from which the Booths could recover. The district court granted summary judgment to the City of Cyrus (Gades's principal), finding all claims released, but the court of appeals reversed. The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, holding that the agreement's plain language operated as a full release of Gades because it satisfied all claims beyond the primary policy limits in the absence of excess coverage, and under common law principles a release of the agent necessarily released the principal from vicarious liability.

torts & liability

This case involves Kevin Burns appealing the Minnesota Tax Court's decision upholding the Commissioner of Revenue's order for him to repay a portion of a homeowner property tax refund he received for 2003 taxes on a property in Apple Valley. The court affirmed the order, finding that Burns was not eligible for the refund because he neither owned nor occupied the property on January 2, 2004, as required by Minnesota Statutes section 290A.04. Ownership had been lost through a mortgage foreclosure finalized in December 2003, with the issue precluding relitigation under collateral estoppel, and evidence showed he did not occupy the property that year, instead claiming renter status elsewhere. The core reasoning relied on statutory eligibility requirements and factual findings supported by the record, including court documents and certificates of rent paid.

taxesproperty

This case concerns a lawsuit by the B. family against Debra Danks for claims including slander, libel, false reporting, intrusion upon seclusion, and public disclosure of private facts, arising from Danks' communications about suspected sexual abuse of the B. family's daughter by her brother. The district court granted summary judgment to Danks based on statutory immunity under the Reporting of Maltreatment of Minors Act, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that statutory immunity applies only to good-faith reports made to proper officials and does not extend to other communications, and that a genuine dispute of material fact existed regarding whether Danks acted in good faith.

family lawtorts & liability

This case concerned whether certain easements for lake access, created about 100 years ago and recorded over 40 years prior, were extinguished under Minnesota's Marketable Title Act (MTA) or preserved by its possession exception. The Sampairs sought to terminate the easements during Torrens title registration of their lakeshore property, and the appellants claimed ongoing rights based on use. The district court and court of appeals granted summary judgment to the Sampairs, finding no qualifying possession, but the Supreme Court clarified that the possession exception requires proof of use sufficient to notify a prudent person, beginning within 40 years of the easement's creation and continuing to the present action. Applying this standard, the Court held that some appellants presented enough evidence to survive summary judgment while others did not, and therefore affirmed in part and reversed in part.

propertyprocedure

The case involved Jason Finnegan, who was convicted by an Otter Tail County jury of one count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct based on evidence that he assaulted a 14-year-old girl in 2005. Finnegan petitioned for postconviction relief, claiming that his constitutional right to be present at trial was violated when the district court proceeded with the second day of trial after he failed to appear. The postconviction court denied the petition, the court of appeals affirmed, and the Minnesota Supreme Court likewise affirmed. The court held that Finnegan did not meet his burden to demonstrate his absence was involuntary, as the record showed he had overdosed on sleeping pills and thereby waived his right to be present under Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.03.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Howe Bonding's petition to reinstate a $10,000 bail bond forfeited after defendant Timothy Askland failed to appear in a criminal proceeding on felony child support charges. The district court denied the petition, finding that prejudice to the government outweighed the bonding company's good-faith efforts to apprehend Askland under the Shetsky factors. The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court misapplied the prejudice factor because the State presented no evidence of actual harm and the bond disbursement to the county was not relevant prejudice. The court remanded with instructions to reinstate the bond and refund the amount paid, less the minimum 10% penalty required by court rule. The decision addressed the proper exercise of discretion in bond reinstatement under Minnesota statutes and rules.

criminal lawprocedure

Brian Kidwell, who served as in-house general counsel for Sybaritic, Inc., sued the company after his termination alleging a violation of Minnesota's whistleblower statute for reporting concerns about potential company misconduct including a culture of dishonesty, tax issues, unauthorized practice of medicine, and obstruction of discovery in pending litigation. A jury found for Kidwell and awarded damages, but the court of appeals reversed and the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed, granting Sybaritic judgment as a matter of law. The court concluded that Kidwell failed to present evidence of protected conduct under the statute because his reports fell within the ordinary responsibilities of his position as general counsel rather than constituting reports made outside those duties.

labor & employment

This case concerned a challenge by a property owner to his neighbor's request for a zoning variance from the City of Minnetonka to vertically expand a nonconforming detached garage by adding a second story. The district court and court of appeals upheld the City's grant of the variance, but the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed. The Court held that the City applied an incorrect legal standard when it found 'undue hardship' based on the reasonableness of the proposed expansion and its minimal impact on the neighborhood. Instead, the governing statute requires a showing that the property cannot be put to a reasonable use without the variance due to unique circumstances. The matter was remanded to the City for reconsideration under the proper standard.

propertyprocedure

This case involved Moua Her's conviction for first-degree domestic abuse murder of his estranged wife under Minnesota law, based in part on evidence of a prior pattern of domestic abuse including her statements to police about an earlier assault. On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court following Giles v. California, the Minnesota Supreme Court reconsidered whether admitting the wife's out-of-court statements to an officer violated Her's Confrontation Clause rights. The court held that the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine applied because Her caused the wife's unavailability by killing her, without needing to prove his specific intent was to prevent her testimony. It reaffirmed that this common-law equitable doctrine, as recognized in prior precedent, estops the defendant from asserting confrontation rights when his wrongdoing procured the witness's absence, upholding the conviction and life sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves a school district's arbitration claims against contractors and suppliers for alleged construction defects causing leaks at a high school completed in 1994, including both express warranty claims and non-warranty claims. The district court dismissed all claims as untimely under the statute of limitations, and the court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of non-warranty claims but reversed on the warranty claims. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed in part, holding that the statute of limitations bars the non-warranty claims but does not bar the warranty claims, and it remanded the warranty claims to the court of appeals to consider a statute-of-repose defense. The court reasoned that the contractors were not required to file a notice of review to preserve the repose defense for appeal and that the limitations period applied based on the facts of discovery and accrual.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In Ferguson v. State, Jermaine Ferguson was convicted of first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder for his alleged role in a 2004 shooting that killed one person and injured two others. After an initial appeal and postconviction petition were denied, Ferguson filed a second petition based on an affidavit from key witness Kentrell Green recanting his trial testimony that Ferguson had participated in the crime, claiming police coercion. The postconviction court summarily denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing, ruling that the affidavit did not provide sufficient new evidence of genuine recantation and was similar to prior submissions. The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the petition was not Knaffla-barred, the affidavit met the Larrison test's first prong for a hearing on credibility, and the record did not conclusively show Ferguson was entitled to no relief.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Robert Hubbard's request for a variance from the City of Lakeland's bluffline setback ordinance to build a home closer than 40 feet to the bluff overlooking the lower St. Croix River. The City granted the variance, but the DNR declined to certify it under its administrative rule and upheld the denial after a contested case hearing. The court of appeals reversed, finding the variance deemed granted under the 60-day rule, but the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the result on different grounds. The Court held that the DNR lacked statutory authority to require or deny certification of local variance decisions, as its enabling legislation did not grant such power and the agency cannot create it by rule or local ordinance. The decision rested on principles that administrative agencies possess only the authority expressly or impliedly delegated by the legislature.

environmentproperty

Kou Moua was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder for shooting and killing Va Meng Yang in 2001, and his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal in 2004. In this case, Moua appealed the denial of his third petition for postconviction relief, filed in 2009, which raised claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel and sought an evidentiary hearing. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that the petition was untimely under Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(a), because Moua’s conviction became final before August 1, 2005, requiring filing by July 31, 2007, and no statutory exceptions for timeliness applied. The court reviewed the postconviction decision for abuse of discretion and found the time bar dispositive without addressing the merits of the claims.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether Minnesota's vehicle forfeiture statute, Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, allows an innocent joint owner to prevent forfeiture of a vehicle used by another owner in a designated offense. After David Laase's wife was convicted of second-degree criminal test refusal following a DWI stop while driving their jointly owned 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, the county seized the vehicle. The district court and court of appeals held that Laase could assert the innocent owner defense under subdivision 7(d) because he lacked knowledge of the unlawful use. The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the defense is unavailable to a joint owner when one owner is not innocent, based on the statute's plain language requiring that 'its owner' demonstrate lack of knowledge or reasonable preventive steps, which applies to all owners collectively.

criminal lawproperty

The case involved Danna Back's conviction for second-degree manslaughter after her acquaintance Nicholas Super shot and killed her former boyfriend Daniel Holliday, whom Back had brought Super to visit on New Year's Eve. The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that the evidence was insufficient to establish that Back acted with criminal negligence. The court's reasoning centered on the absence of any legal duty on Back's part to protect Holliday from Super's actions, as she lacked knowledge that Super possessed a gun that night and no special relationship existed that would impose such a responsibility.

criminal law

The case concerned whether state courts have subject matter jurisdiction under ERISA to review a pension plan administrator’s decision that a domestic relations order issued in a divorce proceeding was not qualified. After the district court found concurrent jurisdiction and entered a default judgment for the former spouse seeking benefits, the plan and administrator moved to vacate, arguing exclusive federal jurisdiction. The court of appeals reversed on jurisdiction. The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed, holding that ERISA’s jurisdictional provision grants state and federal courts concurrent authority to review such plan administrator determinations regarding qualified domestic relations orders.

family lawprocedurefederal power

The case involved the convictions of 15-year-old Amani Jamalludin Fardan for first-degree felony murder, second-degree felony murder, and first-degree aggravated robbery arising from the shooting death of Bernard Brown during a planned robbery in Minneapolis. Fardan appealed, claiming errors in the admission of his custodial statement, the introduction of Spreigl evidence of other crimes, his consecutive life sentence, and the sufficiency of the evidence for the first-degree murder conviction; he also sought vacation of the lesser convictions if the primary one was upheld. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the first-degree felony murder conviction after reviewing the trial record and legal arguments, modified the judgment by vacating the second-degree murder and aggravated robbery convictions as lesser-included offenses, and addressed procedural claims regarding Miranda warnings and evidentiary rulings without finding reversible error on the affirmed count.

criminal lawprocedure