EN
BANC CALENDAR
Before
the Minnesota
Supreme Court
May 2007
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
Summaries
prepared by the Supreme Court Commissioner’s Office
Monday, April 30, 2007, 9:00 a.m.
Supreme Court
Courtroom, State Capitol
Onvoy,
Inc., Respondent vs. ALLETE, Inc., f/k/a Minnesota Power, Inc., d/b/a Minnesota
Power & Light Company, et al., Appellants – Case No. A05-1497: In
this dispute over the terms of a commercial lease, the complaint of respondent
and lessee Onvoy, Inc., against appellants ALLETE, Inc., d/b/a Minnesota Power
& Light Company (the lessor) and Enventis Telecom, Inc., included both
legal and equitable claims. A jury heard
the parties’ legal claims against each other; Onvoy’s equitable claims,
including a request for declaratory judgment that the lease gave Onvoy a right
of access to space in the building outside of the leased space sufficient to
allow it to interconnect its equipment in the leased space with other
telecommunications service providers, were simultaneously tried to the
court. The jury found, among other
things, that ALLETE had not breached the lease by denying Onvoy access to space
outside the leased space. The district court
entered judgment on the parties’ legal claims in accordance with the jury
verdict, but entered declaratory judgment in favor of Onvoy. The court of appeals affirmed. At issue is whether a jury verdict on a legal
claim binds the district court in its determination of accompanying equitable
claims. (St. Louis County)
State
of Minnesota,
Respondent vs. Detroit
Davis, Jr., Appellant – Case No. A06-1481: On appeal from his
conviction of first-degree murder, appellant Detroit Davis, Jr., presents
the following issues for review: (1)
whether he was denied a fair trial by the admission of evidence of his prior
felony convictions; and (2) whether the prosecution committed misconduct during
cross-examination of appellant by commenting on appellant’s ability to listen
to the testimony of the state’s witnesses before testifying or during closing
argument by characterizing appellant’s testimony as “preposterous.” (Hennepin
County)
Tuesday, May 1, 2007, 9:00 a.m.
St. Paul Central
High School
State
of Minnesota, Appellant
vs. Mohammed G. Al-Naseer, Respondent – Case No. A05-1394:
Respondent Mohammed Al-Naseer was convicted of criminal vehicular
homicide for leaving the scene of an accident, after his vehicle struck and
killed a driver who was changing a flat tire.
Minnesota Statutes § 169.09, subdivision 1 (2006), requires a driver
involved in an accident “resulting in immediately demonstrable bodily injury to
or death of any person” to stop and remain at the accident scene. Al-Naseer’s conviction was reversed by the
court of appeals on grounds that, although the district court found that
Al-Naseer knew his vehicle had struck something, the state failed to prove that
Al-Naseer knew his vehicle had struck another person causing bodily injury or
death to that person. The issue before
the supreme court is what knowledge, if any, is required for a conviction of
leaving the scene of an accident. (Clay County)
Wednesday, May 2, 2007, 9:00 a.m.
Supreme Court
Courtroom, State Capitol
State
of Minnesota,
Respondent vs. James Clinton Wren, Appellant – Case No. A06-1283: On
appeal from his conviction of first-degree murder, appellant James Wren
presents the following issues for review:
(1) whether the district court committed reversible error by empanelling
an anonymous jury; (2) whether the district court committed reversible error by
denying Wren’s challenge to the racial composition of the jury under Batson; and (3) whether the prosecution
committed misconduct warranting a new trial.
Wren raises additional issues in a pro se supplemental brief. (Hennepin County)
EN
BANC NONORAL: Reginald Gail, petitioner,
Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A06-2271: On
appeal from the denial of post‑conviction relief following his conviction
of first-degree murder, appellant pro se Reginald Gail presents the following
issues for review: (1) whether the jury
selection procedure in use in Hennepin County at the time of his trial embodied
racial factors; (2) whether he received effective assistance of counsel at
trial and on appeal; (3) whether the district court erred in its instructions
to the jury; (4) whether the district court erred in its evidentiary rulings;
(5) whether he is entitled to a new trial because the jury was sequestered
during deliberations; and (6) whether the prosecution committed misconduct in
closing argument. (Hennepin County)
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Supreme Court
Courtroom, State Capitol
State of Minnesota,
Respondent vs. Burhan Mohammed Farrah, Appellant – Case No. A05-1277: Appellant
Burhan Mohammed Farrah was convicted of fourth‑degree criminal sexual
conduct; his conviction was affirmed by the court of appeals. On appeal to the supreme court, Farrah
presents the following issues:
(1) whether he clearly and unequivocally invoked his right to
counsel, requiring suppression of his subsequent statement to investigators;
(2) whether his waiver of his Miranda
rights was knowing and intelligent; (3) whether officers violated Minn. Stat.
§ 611.32, subd. 2 (2006) (requiring that an interpreter be provided for
criminal suspects who are handicapped in their communications) by questioning
him without an interpreter, and whether a violation of section 611.32 requires
suppression of statements obtained without an interpreter; and (4) whether the
district court erred in admitting the victim’s prior consistent statements as
substantive evidence. (Hennepin County)
James E. Gluba, deceased, by Lorraine
Gluba, Relator vs. Bitzan & Ohren Masonry and Grinnell Mutual Group,
Respondents – Case No. A06-1849: Minnesota
Statutes § 176.101, subdivision 4 (2006), awards workers compensation benefits
to those workers who have permanent total disability. Minnesota Statutes § 176.101,
subdivision 5(2) (2006), defines “permanent total disability” to include any
injury that totally and permanently incapacitates the employee from working,
provided that the employee also has a permanent partial disability rating of
the whole body. The required percentage
of permanent partial disability varies with the employee’s age and education. Relator James Gluba, who had an eighth-grade
education and was injured at age 69, sought permanent total disability benefits
but was denied them on grounds that his whole-body permanency rating was less
than the required threshold for a worker of his age and education level. The Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Court of
Appeals affirmed. The issue before the
supreme court is whether Minn. Stat. § 176.101 is unconstitutional because it
does not provide equal protection to all injured workers. (Minnesota
Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals)
Monday, May 7, 2007
Courtroom
300, Minnesota
Judicial Center
Diane
Lorix, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellant
vs. Crompton Corporation, et al., Respondents, Flexsys NV, et al., Defendants,
Bayer Corporation, Respondent – Case No. A05-2148: Appellant
Diane Lorix sued respondents Crompton Corporation, Uniroyal Chemical Co.,
Inc., Uniroyal Chemical Company, Ltd., and Bayer Corporation, among others,
accusing them of conspiring to fix the price of chemicals used to process
rubber used in automobile tires. The
district court dismissed the complaint on grounds that Lorix lacked standing
under Minn. Stat. § 325D.57 (2006) to bring an antitrust claim because Lorix
purchased only tires and not the chemicals themselves. The court of appeals affirmed the
dismissal. Section 325D.57 allows any
person “injured directly or indirectly” by a violation of the Minnesota
Antitrust Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 325D.49-.66 (2006), to recover treble damages,
costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorney fees. At issue before the supreme court is whether
section 325D.57 limits plaintiffs in antitrust suits, as the district court
concluded, to “consumers and competitors in the market restrained by the alleged
antitrust violation.” (Wilkin County)
EN
BANC NONORAL: Brian Keith Pippitt,
petitioner, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A06-2106: Appellant
Brian Pippitt’s conviction of first-degree premeditated murder was affirmed on direct
appeal. On appeal from the denial of
postconviction relief, Pippitt presents the following issues for review: (1) whether the district court erred in
denying his motion for a new trial based on newly‑discovered evidence;
(2) whether he received effective assistance of counsel at trial; and (3)
whether his claim of prosecutorial misconduct should not be barred under State v. Knaffla, even though it was not
raised on direct appeal, because he first learned of the alleged misconduct
during postconviction proceedings.
Pippitt raises additional issues in a pro se supplemental brief. (Aitkin
County)
Tuesday, May 8, 2007, 9:00 a.m.
Courtroom
300, Minnesota
Judicial Center
In
re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Dewey M. Nelson, a Minnesota Attorney,
Registration No. 77677 – Case No. A06-1370: An attorney discipline
matter that presents the question of what discipline, if any, is appropriate
upon the facts of the matter.
EN
BANC NONORAL: Afton Historial Society
Press, Relator vs. County of Washington,
Respondent – Case No. A07-3: Relator Afton Historical Society Press
challenged the assessment of property taxes on property it owns in Washington
County, claiming the property is exempt from real estate taxation under Minn.
Stat. § 272.02, subd. 7 (2006), because it is an institution of purely public
charity. The Minnesota Tax Court
concluded that the Press is not an institution of purely public charity under
the six‑factor analysis of North
Star Research Inst. v. County of Hennepin, 306 Minn. 1, 236 N.W.2d 754
(1975). On appeal to the supreme court,
the Press questions: (1) whether the tax
court correctly applied the North Star factors; and (2) whether the tax
court imposed on it an unduly strict burden of proof. (Minnesota
Tax Court)
EN
BANC NONORAL: State of Minnesota,
Respondent vs. Justin Paul Farnsworth, Appellant – Case No. A06-258: Appellant
Justin Farnsworth was charged with three counts of first-degree criminal sexual
conduct. On the day of trial, Farnsworth
pleaded guilty to one count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, but
Farnsworth was allowed to withdraw his guilty plea after the district court
later ruled that portions of his statement to police were obtained through
coercive interrogation techniques. The
court of appeals reversed the district court’s order allowing Farnsworth to
withdraw his guilty plea. There are two
issues before the supreme court: (1)
whether the district court erred in suppressing portions of Farnsworth’s
statement to police; and (2) whether the district court erred in allowing
Farnsworth to withdraw his guilty plea.
(Dakota County)
Wednesday, May 9, 2007, 9:00 a.m.
Courtroom 300, Minnesota Judicial Center
State
of Minnesota,
Respondent vs. Farah Abshir Warsame, Appellant – Case No. A05-488: Appellant
Farah Warsame was charged with domestic assault and making terroristic
threats. The district court ruled that
statements made by the alleged victim to police were not admissible because
they were testimonial in nature and therefore violated Warsame’s rights under
the Confrontation Clause. The court of
appeals reversed and, after the supreme court denied review, Warsame appealed
to the United States Supreme Court. The
Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals decision and remanded the case to
the court of appeals for reconsideration in light of the Court’s decision in Davis v. Washington, 126 S. Ct. 2266,
2273-74 (2006) (defining statements made to police as nontestimonial when they
are made “under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose
of the interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing
emergency”). On remand, the court of
appeals again ruled that the alleged victim’s statements are admissible because
they are not testimonial in nature. The
issue before the supreme court is whether the alleged victim’s statements to
police are admissible at trial because they were made during an “ongoing
emergency” and therefore are not testimonial in nature. (Hennepin County)
EN
BANC NONORAL: Ronald E. Byers, Relator
vs. Commissioner of Revenue, Respondent – Case No. A06-2450: Relator
Ronald Byers, acting pro se, presents the following issues for review by the
supreme court: (1) whether Minn. R. Civ.
P. 63.02 required the judge of the Minnesota Tax Court hearing his appeal to
recuse herself from his case after finding him in contempt of court in another
case for failing to respond to a subpoena for production of documents; (2)
whether Minn. R. Gen. P. 106 requires that the chief judge of the Minnesota Tax
Court hear his appeal from the denial of his motion to remove the judge
presiding over his case; and (3) whether the tax court erred in finding that he
failed to report certain income. (Minnesota Tax Court)