EN BANC CALENDAR
Before the Minnesota Supreme Court
November 2006
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
Summaries prepared by
the Supreme Court Commissioner’s Office
Monday, October 30, 2006, 9:00 a.m.
Supreme Court Courtroom, State Capitol
Nancy Becker and Michael Becker, individually and as parents and
guardians for Nykkole E. Becker, f/k/a Nykkole E. Rossini, Appellants, Minnesota
Department of Human Services, plaintiff intervenor, Appellant vs. Mayo
Foundation, Respondent – Case No. A05-45: Appellants Nancy and Michael Becker
appeal from the jury’s verdict that respondent Mayo Foundation was negligent
for failing to report suspected abuse of the daughter appellants later adopted,
but that respondent’s negligence was not a direct cause of their daughter’s
injuries. At issue are: (1) whether there is a civil cause of
action under the Minnesota Child Abuse Reporting Act, Minn. Stat. § 626.556
(2004), for a physician’s negligent failure to report suspected child abuse;
(2) whether the district court properly excluded evidence related to
respondent’s failure to report suspected child abuse; and (3) whether a
hospital that treats a child only as an outpatient owes a special duty to the
child. (Olmsted County)
State of Minnesota,
Respondent vs. Marvin Haynes, Jr., Appellant – Case No.
A05-2444: On appeal from his conviction of
first-degree murder, appellant Marvin Haynes, Jr., presents the following
issues for review: (1) whether the
district court properly allowed the jury to review during deliberations the
audiotaped statement of a witness to police; (2) whether the prosecution
engaged in misconduct warranting a new trial; and (3) whether appellant
was denied a fair trial by the admission of evidence of appellant’s past
contacts with the police. (Hennepin County)
Tuesday, October 31, 2006, 9:00 a.m.
Supreme Court
Courtroom, State Capitol
State of Minnesota,
Appellant vs. Rossco A. Ross, Respondent – Case No.
A04-1715: Respondent Rossco Ross was convicted by a
jury of identity theft and two counts of theft by swindle. The court of appeals reversed the conviction
on grounds that the counts were improperly joined in one criminal complaint
because they were not related in “time, place, and criminal objective.” Appellant
State of Minnesota presents the following issues for
review: (1) whether offenses can be
“related” under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 17.03, subd. 3(1)(a), without satisfying the traditional “time, place, and
criminal objective” analysis; and (2) whether joinder of the offenses
under the traditional “time, place and criminal objective” test was harmless
error in this case. (Hennepin County)
State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Anthony John Palubicki,
Appellant – Case No. A06-401:
Appellant Anthony John Palubicki was convicted of first-degree
murder and two counts of first-degree felony murder in the death of L.O., and
was separately sentenced on each count.
On appeal, this court affirmed the convictions but directed the district
court to vacate two of the three convictions and sentences. On remand, the district court vacated the
sentences for felony murder but did not vacate any of the convictions. Appellant was resentenced to a life sentence
for the conviction of first-degree murder.
On appeal, appellant presents the following issues for review: (1) whether the district court erred in
vacating his sentences for felony murder but not the convictions;
(2) whether the district court erred in ordering restitution to the
victim’s next of kin for various expenses incurred during the investigation and
while attending court proceedings in the case; and (3) whether the
district court should have offset the restitution to be paid by appellant by
any restitution paid to the same family members by a co-defendant. (Hubbard
County)
Wednesday, November 1, 2006, 9:00 a.m.
Supreme Court
Courtroom, State Capitol
In the
Matter of the Petition of Joshua S. Collier, in Relation to Property Registered
in Certificate of Title No. 1596547 for an Order Directing Entry of a New
Certificate and Declaratory Relief – Case No. A05-1178: M & I Bank FSB appeals from a
decision by the court of appeals that its mortgage is junior to the interest of
Joshua Collier in certain real property.
At issue is whether one who purchases, for less than its fair market
value, an interest in Torrens property with actual notice and knowledge of a
prior mortgage that is recorded in the office of the county recorder but not
registered in the office of the county registrar of titles nevertheless
purchases in “good faith and for a valuable consideration” because the mortgage
is not enforceable against the property.
(Hennepin County)
NONORAL: Timothy Michael Erickson,
petitioner, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A06-1113:
On appeal from the denial of his petition for postconviction relief from
his conviction of first-degree murder, appellant pro se Timothy Michael
Erickson presents the following issues for review: (1) whether appellant received effective
assistance of counsel at trial and during his direct appeal; (2) whether
the prosecutor committed misconduct; (3) whether the district court
exhibited bias toward appellant during trial; and (4) whether the district
court erred in not conducting a hearing on appellant’s petition for
postconviction relief. (Sherburne County)
Monday, November 6, 2006, 9:00 a.m.
Courtroom
300, Minnesota
Judicial Center
State of
Minnesota, Respondent
vs. Luke A. Otterstad, Appellant, Robert A. Rudnick, Appellant – Case Nos. A05-178, A05-179: On appeal from their convictions of
creating a public nuisance and violating the City of Anoka’s ban on signs in
the public right-of-way, appellants Luke Otterstad and Robert Rudnick present
the following issues for review:
(1) whether Minn. Stat. § 609.74(1) (2004) applies
to peaceful acts of political protesters or is unconstitutionally vague;
(2) whether prosecuting appellants for violating Minn. Stat. § 609.74(1)
was an unconstitutional content-based restriction of appellants’ right to
freedom of speech; and (3) whether the city’s sign ordinance applied to
appellants’ conduct. (Anoka County)
NONORAL: Michael C.
Francis, petitioner, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case Nos. A05-190,
A06-940: On consolidated
appeal from his conviction of first-degree murder and denial of his
postconviction petition, appellant pro se Michael Francis presents the
following issues for review:
(1) whether the prosecutor committed misconduct entitling appellant
to a new trial; (2) whether the district court committed various
evidentiary errors entitling appellant to a new trial; (3) whether
appellant is entitled to a new trial because the district court erred in not
instructing the jury on lesser-included offenses; (4) whether appellant is
entitled to a new trial because he received ineffective assistance of counsel;
and (5) whether the district court should have granted appellant an
evidentiary hearing on his petition for postconviction relief. (Hennepin County)
Tuesday, November 7, 2006, 9:00 a.m.
Courtroom
300, Minnesota
Judicial Center
State of Minnesota,
Respondent vs. Jeffrey Scott Clemons, Appellant – Case No. A04-1949: On
appeal from his conviction of harassment and violating a restraining order,
appellant Jeffrey Scott Clemons presents the following issues for review: (1) whether the prosecutor’s failure to
disclose police reports of other complaints made about appellant entitles
appellant to a new trial; (2) whether the prosecutor’s failure to disclose
the existence of other witnesses to the incidents for which appellant was
charged entitles appellant to a new trial; and (3) whether the
complainant’s statement that she and appellant had quarreled over “hot
property” and “people coming over doing drugs” constituted improper references
to appellant’s character. (Ramsey County)
Mahoney & Hagberg, a Professional Association, n/k/a
Mahoney & Emerson, a Professional Association, and Mahoney & Emerson,
Ltd., Appellants vs. Tracy L. Newgard, Respondent – Case No. A05-1523: Appellants sued respondent for breach of
confidences and invasion of privacy after respondent, a former employee of
appellants, submitted an affidavit in litigation brought against appellants by
a third party. At issue is whether
respondent’s affidavit is privileged under the doctrine of judicial
immunity. (Hennepin County)
Wednesday, November 8, 2006, 9:00 a.m.
Courtroom
300, Minnesota
Judicial Center
State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Scott Evan Davis, Appellant –
Case No. A05-857: On
appeal from his conviction of possession of narcotics, appellant Scott Evan
Davis presents the following issues for review:
(1) whether a canine sniff of an apartment, conducted from the
common hallway, is a search requiring probable cause or requires only a
reasonable articulable suspicion of drug-related activity; and (2) if only
a reasonable articulable suspicion of drug-related activity is required,
whether the officer in this case had enough information to meet that
burden. (Dakota County)
State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. David Eugene Wright, Appellant
– Case No. A03-1197: Appellant
David Eugene Wright was convicted by a jury of second-degree assault and
possession of a firearm, based in part on the statements to police of two
witnesses who did not testify at trial.
While appellant’s case was on appeal, the United States Supreme Court
ruled in Crawford v. Washington, 541
U. S. 36 (2004), that the Confrontation Clause of the United States
Constitution prohibits the introduction of “testimonial” hearsay statements
unless the defendant has the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. The Court further defined “testimonial” hearsay
statements in Davis v. Washington,
___ U. S.
___, 126 S. Ct. 2266 (2006). After its decision in Davis, the Supreme Court
vacated appellant’s conviction and remanded to the Minnesota Supreme Court for
reconsideration in light of Davis. The issue on remand is whether the witnesses’
statements to police were “testimonial” in nature under Davis. (Hennepin
County)
Thursday, November 9, 2006, 9:00 a.m.
Courtroom
300, Minnesota
Judicial Center
State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Frederick Kemond Jackson,
Appellant – Case No. A05-1882:
On appeal from his conviction of aiding and abetting first-degree murder
of a clerk during the attempted robbery of a convenience store, appellant
Frederick Kemond Jackson presents the following issues for review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient
to convict appellant; (2) whether the death of the clerk was reasonably
foreseeable to appellant as a probable consequence of the attempted robbery of
the store; and (3) whether the district court erred in not instructing the
jury on accomplice testimony. Appellant
raises additional issues in a pro se supplemental brief. (Hennepin
County)
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against William Albert
Plummer, a Minnesota
Attorney – Case No. A06-1352: An attorney discipline matter that
presents the issue of what discipline, if any, is appropriate based upon the
facts of the matter.