EN BANC CALENDAR

Before the Minnesota Supreme Court

October 2015

SUMMARY OF ISSUES

Summaries prepared by the Supreme Court Commissioner’s Office

Monday, October 5, 2015

Courtroom 300, Minnesota Judicial Center

J.D. Donovan, Inc., et al., Appellants vs. Minnesota Department of Transportation, et al., Respondents – Case Nos. A14-0863, A14-1021: Appellants J.D. Donovan, Inc., and Wayne Transports, Inc., commenced separate actions against respondent Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief regarding the application of the Minnesota Prevailing Wage Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 177.41–.44 (2014), to their hauling work. In both cases, the district courts granted MnDOT’s motions for dispositive relief. The court of appeals consolidated the cases and affirmed, concluding that the delivery of asphalt cement materials from refineries to the facilities of prime contractors was subject to the Prevailing Wage Act.

On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether the hauling activities performed by appellants qualified as “work under the contract” pursuant to the Prevailing Wage Act; and (2) whether the hauling activities were exempt from the Prevailing Wage Act under the commercial-establishment exception in Minn. Stat. § 177.44, subd. 2. (Ramsey County)

Thomas Daniel Rhodes, petitioner, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case Nos. A13-0560, A15-0136: In 1998, appellant Thomas Rhodes was convicted of first-degree murder. Rhodes’s conviction and the denial of his first petition for postconviction were affirmed on direct appeal. In 2012, Rhodes, appearing pro se, filed his third petition for postconviction relief, which the district court summarily denied. In 2014, while represented by counsel, Rhodes filed his fourth petition for postconviction relief. He claimed he was entitled to a new trial based on alleged false testimony from the medical examiner and a law enforcement officer and based on newly discovered evidence related to advances in the forensic pathology of drowning. The district court summarily denied Rhodes’s fourth petition for postconviction relief.

In this consolidated appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether appellant’s petitions for postconviction relief are barred by Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4 (2014); (2) whether appellant’s claims for postconviction relief are barred by State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 243 N.W.2d 737 (1976): (3) whether appellant is entitled to a new trial based on false testimony; (4) whether appellant is entitled to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence; and (5) whether appellant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on any of the claims raised in his petitions for postconviction relief. (Kandiyohi County)

Tuesday, October 6, 2015

William Mitchell College of Law

Melinda M. Binkley, Trustee on behalf of the heirs and next of kin of Kirk T. Lloyd, II, Appellant vs. Allina Health System, et al., Respondents – Case No. A14-0794: Melinda M. Binkley asserted a medical-negligence claim against Allina Health System and Allina medical professionals after they decided not to admit her 17-year-old son to the inpatient mental-health-care unit of United Hospital for voluntary treatment, and he later committed suicide. Allina moved for summary judgment, arguing in part that the decision not to admit Binkley’s son is immune from suit under the Minnesota Commitment and Treatment Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 253B.01–.24 (2014). The district court denied the summary judgment motion. The court of appeals reversed, holding that decisions on whether to grant an individual’s request for voluntary admission under Minn. Stat. § 253B.04, subd. 1, are immune from suit under Minn. Stat. § 253B.23, subd. 4.

On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether the immunity provision of the Minnesota Commitment and Treatment Act bars medical-negligence claims against mental-health-care providers that deny admission to a mentally ill person seeking voluntary inpatient treatment. (Ramsey County)

Wednesday, October 7, 2015

Courtroom 300, Minnesota Judicial Center

State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Timothy John Huber, Appellant – Case No. A13-1928: A jury found appellant Timothy Huber guilty of second-degree intentional murder and second-degree unintentional felony murder. A divided court of appeals panel affirmed Huber’s conviction.

On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether appellant is entitled to a new trial under a plain-error standard of review because the district court failed to properly instruct the jury on when a person may be convicted under an aiding-and-abetting theory for a crime committed by another person. (Kandiyohi County)

State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Heather Leann Horst, Appellant – Case No. A14-1464: Following a jury trial, appellant Heather Horst was convicted of first-degree murder.

On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether the district court erred by failing to suppress appellant’s statement to police because she was subject to custodial interrogation and not advised of her Miranda rights; (2) whether the district court erred by ruling that the warrantless seizure of appellant’s cell phone was justified by exigent circumstances; (3) whether appellant is entitled to a new trial because her medical records were seized pursuant to a search warrant that was not limited as to time and without regard to the physician-patient privilege; (4) whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain the jury’s verdicts; (5) whether appellant is entitled to a new trial under a plain-error standard of review because the district court failed to give an accomplice corroboration jury instruction; and (6) whether the district court abused its discretion by failing to remove a juror for cause because the juror knew one of the witnesses. (Ramsey County)

Thursday, October 8, 2015

Duluth Denfeld High School

Kelly Dennis, Respondent vs. The Salvation Army and Chesterfield Services, Inc., Relators – Case No. A15-0715: Respondent The Salvation Army owns two buildings in downtown Minneapolis related to its kitchen services, building 1010 and building 1011. Respondent Kelly Dennis worked in the kitchen for The Salvation Army in building 1010. On February 8, 2013, as he was crossing the street in order to take a smoking break outside of building 1011, Dennis injured his knee after slipping in accumulating snow and slush and falling to the ground. Dennis sought workers’ compensation benefits for his injury. The compensation judge found that Dennis crossed the street only for smoking and not for any work-related reason and that Dennis’s injury was caused by slippery conditions from snow and ice. Finding that the street-risk doctrine applied, the compensation judge concluded Dennis’s injury arose out of his employment. The Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA) affirmed.

On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) pursuant to Dykhoff v. Xcel Energy, 840 N.W.2d 821 (Minn. 2013), is an employee required to prove that an injury arose out of and in the course of employment in a personal comfort doctrine case; (2) whether the street-risk doctrine applies to respondent’s case; and (3) whether Dykhoff requires that the employee prove a work injury was in the course of his or her employment. (Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals)

Monday, October 12, 2015

Courtroom 300, Minnesota Judicial Center

Sprinkler Warehouse, Inc., Respondent v. Systematic Rain, Inc., d/b/a GPLAWN.com, et al., Appellants – Case No. A14-1121: Respondent Sprinkler Warehouse, Inc. sued appellant Systematic Rain, Inc., d/b/a GPLAWN.com in Texas and obtained a default judgment. It later docketed a $156,000 judgment against Systematic Rain in Minnesota district court. It served a garnishment summons on Systematic Rain’s CEO, appellant James R. Palm. The parties disputed whether the domain name “GPLAWN.com,” and the contents of the website accessible at that domain name are property attachable by garnishment pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 571.73, subd. 3 (2014). The district court ruled that neither domain names nor websites are property attachable by garnishment. The court of appeals reversed and remanded, concluding that both domain names and websites are subject to garnishment.

On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether a domain name constitutes property subject to garnishment under Minn. Stat. § 571.73 (2014). (Scott County)

Brent R. Wilcox, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants vs. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Defendant/Respondent – Case No. A15-0724: Appellants sued respondent State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, alleging, in part, that State Farm breached their homeowners’ insurance policy. Appellants alleged that State Farm underpaid a property claim for damage to their home by depreciating the cost of labor needed to make repairs. The case was removed to federal court. Concluding Minnesota law applied, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota certified a question to the Minnesota Supreme Court pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 480.065 (2014).

Before the supreme court, the following certified question is presented: When a homeowner’s insurance policy does not define the term “actual cash value,” may an insurer depreciate the cost of labor in determining the “actual cash value” or a covered loss when the estimated cost to repair or replace the damaged property includes both materials and embedded labor components? (Certified Question from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota)

Tuesday, October 13, 2015

Courtroom 300, Minnesota Judicial Center

State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Ishmael Roberts, Appellant – Case No. A14-2039: Appellant Ishmael Roberts was indicted on two counts of first-degree premeditated murder. Roberts asserted a mental-illness defense. He waived his right to a jury trial and agreed to a stipulated-facts trial for the guilt phase. The district court found Roberts guilty of both counts. Following a court trial on Roberts’s mental-illness defense, the district court concluded that Roberts had not proven that he was not guilty by reason of mental illness or deficiency. Specifically, the district court concluded that Roberts had not proven that he did not know the nature of his act or that it was morally wrong.

On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether the evidence was sufficient to permit the district court to conclude that appellant had not proven that he was not guilty by reason of mental illness or deficiency. (Hennepin County)

Nonoral: Rene Julian McKenzie petitioner, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A14-1395: Appellant Rene McKenzie was convicted of first-degree murder in 1992. The supreme court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal. McKenzie filed a petition for postconviction relief in 2012, claiming that a witness had fabricated his trial testimony. McKenzie also included affidavits from the wife and son of this witness, claiming that the witness had told them he fabricated his testimony against McKenzie. Prior to an evidentiary hearing on McKenzie’s postconviction petition, the district court appointed counsel for the witness accused of fabricating testimony and his wife and son. At the evidentiary hearing, all three invoked their Fifth Amendment rights and refused to testify. The district court denied the petition for postconviction relief.

On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether the district court abused its discretion when it found the prosecutor had not improperly interfered with appellant’s constitutional right to compulsory process or violated his right to due process by discouraging witnesses from testifying at appellant’s postconviction hearing; (2) whether the district court violated appellant’s right to compulsory process by failing to order use immunity for two witnesses at the hearing on appellant’s petition for postconviction relief; and (3) whether the district court abused its discretion by determining appellant was not entitled to new trial based on fabricated trial testimony. (Hennepin County).

Wednesday, October 14, 2015

Courtroom 300, Minnesota Judicial Center

In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Robert Andrew Huff, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 283502 – Case No. A14-0024: An attorney discipline case that presents the question of what discipline, if any, is appropriate based on the facts of the matter.

Nonoral: Vidale L. Whitson, petitioner, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case Nos. C5-02-2108, A04-0875: Following a jury trial, appellant Vidale Whitson was convicted of first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder.

On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether appellant is entitled to a new trial because the prosecutor committed misconduct by eliciting testimony from a witness in violation of a court order. (St. Louis County)