EN
BANC CALENDAR
Before
the Minnesota
Supreme Court
February 2007
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
Summaries
prepared by the Supreme Court Commissioner’s Office
Monday, January 29, 2007, 9:00 a.m.
Supreme Court
Courtroom, State Capitol
State
of Minnesota,
Respondent vs. Wambli S. McArthur, Appellant – Case No. A06-853:
On appeal from his conviction of first-degree intentional murder,
appellant Wambli S. McArthur presents the following issues for
review: (1) whether the evidence of
premeditation was sufficient to support the conviction of first-degree murder;
and (2) whether the district court’s evidentiary rulings or statements
made by the prosecution during closing argument deprived appellant of a fair
trial. Appellant raises an additional
issue concerning pretrial discovery in a pro se supplemental brief. (Hennepin
County)
In
re Petition for Discipinary Action against Sergio Roberto Andrade, a Minnesota
Attorney, Registration No. 261750 – Case No. A06-426:
An attorney discipline matter that presents the issue of what
discipline, if any, is appropriate under the facts of the matter.
EN
BANC NONORAL - State of Minnesota,
Respondent vs. Quanartis DaLee Turnage, Appellant – Case No. A06-1124: On
appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief following his conviction of
first-degree murder committed during a kidnapping, appellant Quanartis DaLee
Turnage presents the following issues for review: (1) whether the district court abused
its discretion in denying appellant a new trial or an evidentiary hearing to
determine the credibility of a witness who recanted after testifying for the
prosecution; and (2) whether in denying the request for post-conviction
relief the district court applied the correct legal standard. (Dakota
County)
Tuesday, January 30, 2007, 9:00 a.m.
Supreme Court
Courtroom, State Capitol
State
of Minnesota,
Respondent vs. Billy Bailey, Appellant – Case No. A05-2515:
Appellant Billy Bailey’s first conviction of first-degree murder
committed during the course of a sexual assault was overturned by the court and
the matter remanded to the district court for a new trial. State
v. Bailey, 677 N.W.2d 380 (Minn. 2004). Appellant was convicted after a second trial
and in this appeal presents the following issues for review: (1) whether the district court
improperly allowed the prosecution to exercise a peremptory strike against a
Native American member of the jury venire; (2) whether the district court
erred in its evidentiary rulings concerning the admission of DNA evidence and
in limiting the testimony of a defense expert witness. Appellant raises additional issues in a pro
se supplemental brief. (Hennepin County)
State
of Minnesota,
Respondent vs. Justin Paul Farnsworth, Appellant – Case No. A06-258:
Appellant Justin Paul Farnsworth was permitted to withdraw his guilty
plea to first-degree criminal sexual conduct, before sentencing, after the
district court suppressed a portion of appellant’s statement to police on
grounds it was obtained through coercive interrogation techniques. The court of appeals reversed and reinstated
the guilty plea. On appeal from the
court of appeals’ reinstatement of appellant’s guilty plea, the issue before
the Supreme Court is whether withdrawal of appellant’s guilty plea was “fair
and just” under Rule 15.05 of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure in
light of the suppression of a portion of appellant’s statement. (Dakota
County)
Wednesday, January 31, 2007, 9:00 a.m.
Supreme Court
Courtroom, State Capitol
Stanley
L. Roemhildt, Respondent vs. Gresser Companies, Inc., and Zurich Insurance
Company/Creative Risk Solutions, Relators-Respondents, and Met Con Companies,
and State Fund Mutual Insurance Company, Respondents-Relators – Case Nos.
A06-1721 and A06-1793: Stanley Roemhildt was injured on the job
in 2001 while working for Met Con Companies and received workers’
compensation benefits. Roemhildt was
injured again in 2004 while working for Gresser Companies. Gresser Companies and its insurer, Zurich
Insurance Company/Creative Risk Solutions, later settled all past, present, and
future claims with Roemhildt during mediation.
Met Con Companies and its insurer, State Fund Mutual Insurance Company,
declined to participate in the mediation or join in the settlement. A workers’ compensation judge ordered Met Con
and its insurer State Fund to pay a portion of the
settlement; the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals reversed. The issue before the court in case
number A06-1721, on appeal by Gresser Companies and its insurer Zurich, is
whether a non-settling employer and its insurer can be compelled to contribute
to a settlement of future potential benefits to be paid to an injured
employee. The issue in case
number A06-1793, on appeal by Met Con and its insurer State Fund, is
whether the claim for contribution by Gresser and its insurer Zurich is barred
by Minn. Stat. § 176.151(1) (2004), which requires “actions or
proceedings by an injured employee to determine or recover compensation” be
brought within three years after the employer reported the injury. (Workers Compensation Court of Appeals)
In
the Matter of a Request for a Contested Case Hearing on the Proposed Air
Emission Permit for Heron Lake BioEnergy, LLC Fuel Ethanol Production Facility
(A05-1162) AND Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, et al., Appellants
vs. Heron Lake BioEnergy, LLC, Respondent, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
Respondent (A05-2405): Appellants Minnesota Center for Environmental
Advocacy, the Izaak Walton League of America, and Fresh Energy requested that
respondent Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) order a contested
case hearing on the agency’s preliminary determination to issue an air
emissions permit, as a synthetic minor source of air pollutants, to respondent
Heron Lake BioEnergy, LLC, for construction of a coal-fired ethanol
production plant. The MPCA Citizens’
Board rejected appellants’ request for a contested case hearing and approved
issuance of the permit. The court of
appeals affirmed. At issue before the
Supreme Court is whether the board erred in denying the requested contested
case hearing. (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency)
Thursday, February 1, 2007, 9:00 a.m.
Supreme Court
Courtroom, State Capitol
Custom
Ag Service of Montevideo, Inc., Relator vs. Commissioner of Revenue, Respondent
– Case No. A06-1645: Relator Custom Ag Service of Montevideo,
Inc., sells and installs grain drying systems using components it purchases
from out-of-state suppliers. Minnesota
Statutes § 297A.14 (2000) imposed a use tax on tangible personal
property used or manufactured in Minnesota. Minn. Stat. § 297A.25,
subd. 59 (2000), exempted from the use tax the sale of “farm
machinery.” Minnesota
Statutes § 297A.01, subd. 15 (2000), defined “farm
machinery” but specifically exempted from the definition of farm machinery
“grain bins.” Respondent Commissioner of
Revenue assessed use taxes against Custom Ag Service for the years 2000, 2001,
and 2002 for the components Custom Ag Service purchased from out of state in
those years. The Minnesota Tax Court
held that Custom Ag Service was liable for the unpaid use taxes. The issue before the Supreme Court is whether
the purchased components are subject to the Minnesota use tax. (Minnesota
Tax Court)
In
re Petition for Reinstatement of Richard T. Jellinger, a Minnesota
Attorney, Registration No. 137765 – Case No. A05-2091: An
attorney discipline matter that presents the questions of whether and under
what conditions the petitioner, currently under suspension, should be permitted
to resume the active practice of law.