EN BANC CALENDAR
Before
the
September 2013
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
Summaries prepared by the Supreme Court Commissioner’s Office
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
Courtroom
300, Minnesota Judicial Center
Minnesota Laborers Health and Welfare Fund, et al., Respondents vs. Granite Re, Inc., Appellant, vs. Brent Anderson, et al., Respondents – Case No. A12-1017: Respondents Minnesota Laborers Health and Welfare Fund, et al., brought a declaratory judgment action against appellant Granite Re, Inc., seeking clarification of their right to payment under a construction surety bond. The district court granted summary judgment to appellant. The district court determined that respondents’ claim is time-barred under the 1-year limitations period in the bond. The court of appeals reversed and remanded.
On appeal to the supreme
court, the issue presented is whether fraudulent concealment by the principal
obligor tolls a contractual limitations period in a construction surety bond
and bars the surety from asserting its limitations defense. (Dakota County)
Nonoral: Lincoln Lamar Caldwell, petitioner, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – A12-2301: Appellant Lincoln Caldwell was convicted after a jury trial of first-degree murder for the benefit of a gang. The supreme court affirmed Caldwell’s conviction on direct appeal. In May 2012, Caldwell filed his third petition for postconviction relief, claiming he was entitled to a new trial because several witnesses had recanted their trial testimony. The district court denied this petition for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing.
On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether the district court abused its discretion when it summarily denied Caldwell’s third petition for postconviction relief based on recanted trial testimony. (Hennepin County)
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
Courtroom
300, Minnesota Judicial Center
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Tucker Joseph
Hummel, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 286230 – A11-2072: An attorney discipline case that presents
the question of what discipline, if any, is appropriate based on the facts of
the matter.
Nonoral: John Miles, petitioner, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A13-0262: Appellant John Miles was convicted after a jury trial of first-degree murder. In 1998, the supreme court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal. In 2010, Miles filed a petition for postconviction relief based on a claim of newly discovered evidence from O.B. The district court summarily denied the petition. The supreme court affirmed but allowed Miles to file a new petition for postconviction relief alleging newly discovered evidence if it was supported by a sworn, notarized statement from O.B. Miles filed such a petition for postconviction relief. After holding an evidentiary hearing at which O.B. testified, the district court denied the petition.
On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether the district court applied an improper standard when it determined the credibility of O.B.; (2) whether the district court abused its discretion when it concluded that Miles had failed to show he was entitled to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence; (3) whether Miles should be granted a new trial in the interests of justice; and (4) whether the district court abused its discretion when, after the evidentiary hearing, it refused to allow Miles to offer additional evidence of threats against O.B. and refused to allow Miles to offer evidence in response to an affidavit offered by the State that the court said it would not consider. (Hennepin County)
Thursday, September 5, 2013
Courtroom
300, Minnesota Judicial Center
Jolene Megan Vassallo, by and through her Guardian ad Litem, Lisa A. Brown, Respondent vs. Jason Lee Majeski, et al., Appellants – Case No. A12-0859: While responding to a dispatch call for assistance, the vehicle of appellant Jason Majeski, a deputy with the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office, collided with the vehicle of respondent Jolene Vassallo at an intersection in Brooklyn Park. Respondent commenced a personal injury action against Deputy Majeski and appellant Hennepin County. Appellants moved for summary judgment and conceded for the purpose of summary judgment that the traffic light was red when Deputy Majeski entered the intersection. The district court granted summary judgment to appellants based on official immunity and vicarious official immunity. The court of appeals reversed.
On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether a jury must determine whether the driver of an emergency vehicle “proceeded cautiously” through a red light before the court can determine whether to afford the driver the protection of official immunity. (Hennepin County)
Monday, September 9, 2013
Courtroom
300, Minnesota Judicial Center
John Gieseke, on behalf of Diversified Water Diversion, Inc., Respondent vs. IDCA, Inc., et al., Appellants – Case No. A12-0713: Respondent John Gieseke, on behalf of Diversified Water Diversion, Inc., brought an action against appellants IDCA, Inc., and Debra and Michael Hogenson. Following a trial, the district court awarded respondent $220,000 on a claim for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. The court of appeals affirmed.
On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether the court has recognized the modern business tort of interference with business expectancy; (2) whether the court should recognize a separate tort for interference with future expectancy or economic advantage; (3) whether the district court erred when it denied appellants’ motion for judgment as matter of law; and (4) whether the district court abused its discretion by denying appellants a new trial or remittitur as to the damage award. (Hennepin County)
Nonoral: Timothy Michael Erickson, petitioner, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A13-0349: Appellant Timothy Erickson was convicted following a jury trial of first-degree murder. In 1989, the supreme court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal. In October 2012, Erickson filed his second petition for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and lack of a fair trial. The district court summarily denied this petition for postconviction relief.
On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether Erickson’s second petition for postconviction relief is time-barred; and (2) whether the claims Erickson raised in his second petition for postconviction relief are procedurally barred by State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 243 N.W.2d 737 (1976). (Sherburne County)
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Courtroom
300, Minnesota Judicial Center
State of Minnesota, Appellant vs. John Mark Hentges, Respondent – Case No. A12-0794: Appellant John Hentges appealed his conviction and sentence in this failure-to-provide-child-support case. While his appeal was pending in the court of appeals, Hentges failed to appear for a probation revocation hearing and the district court issued a warrant for his arrest. Respondent State of Minnesota filed a motion to dismiss Hentges’s appeal based on the fugitive-disentitlement doctrine announced in Smith v. United States, 94 U.S. 97 (1876). Under the fugitive-disentitlement doctrine, an appellate court is not inclined to hear and decide cases in which the appellant fails to surrender himself to the lower court. The court of appeals denied the motion to dismiss.
On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether Minnesota should adopt the fugitive-disentitlement doctrine. (Le Sueur County).
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Courtroom
300, Minnesota Judicial Center
State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Wesley Eugene Brooks, Appellant – Case Nos. A11-1042, A11-1043: In three separate criminal cases, appellant Wesley Brooks was convicted of first-degree driving-while-impaired. In each of these cases, Brooks moved to suppress the warrantless search of his blood or urine, which was used to perform tests to determine his alcohol concentration. The district court denied Brooks’s motions to suppress, and the court of appeals affirmed those rulings, concluding that the rapid dissipation of alcohol in the body created exigent circumstances that justified a warrantless search.
Brooks file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. The Court granted his petition for a writ of certiorari, vacated the judgments, and remanded the cases to the court of appeals for further consideration in light of Missouri v. McNeely, __ U.S. __, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013), in which the Court held that the natural metabolization of alcohol in the bloodstream does not present a per se exigency that justifies a warrantless search for blood in all drunk driving cases. The Minnesota Supreme Court granted petitions for accelerated review.
On appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether McNeely applies to a warrantless urine search conducted when a person is suspected of driving-while-impaired; (2) whether exigent circumstances existed to justify the warrantless blood and urine searches of Brooks; (3) whether a warrant was not required to search Brooks’s blood and urine because he consented to the searches; (4) whether the searches of Brooks’s blood and urine were lawful searches incident to arrest; and (5) whether the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule should be applied to all cases predating McNeely. (Hennepin and Scott Counties)
State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Thomas Lee Fairbanks, Appellant – A11-2146: Appellant Thomas Fairbanks was convicted following a jury trial of first-degree murder and numerous other felonies, including four counts of first-degree assault. On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether the district court abused its discretion by moving the venue of Fairbanks’s case from Mahnomen County to Polk County; (2) whether Fairbanks can be prosecuted for murder when the victim died more than 1 year and 1 day after Fairbanks’s actions; (3) whether Fairbanks is entitled to a new trial because the district court abused its discretion by admitting autopsy photographs into evidence; and (4) whether there was sufficient evidence to support Fairbanks’s convictions for first-degree assault. (Mahnomen County).