EN BANC CALENDAR
Before the Minnesota Supreme Court
September 2015
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
Summaries prepared by the Supreme Court Commissioner’s Office
Monday, August 31, 2015
Courtroom 300, Minnesota Judicial Center
Prentis Cordell Jackson, petitioner, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A14-2060: In 2006, a jury found appellant Prentis Jackson guilty of first-degree premeditated murder. Jackson was 17 years old at the time of the offense. The district court sentenced Jackson to a life sentence without the possibility of release. Jackson’s conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. In 2013, Jackson filed a petition for postconviction relief, arguing that he was entitled to a new trial based on recanted trial testimony from Alfred Lamar and that his sentence violated his Eighth Amendment rights…The district court held an evidentiary hearing, at which Lamar asserted his Fifth Amendment rights and refused to testify. The district court ruled that prior written and oral statements Lamar had made about his trial testimony were not admissible at the evidentiary hearing. The district court denied the petition.
On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues presented are: (1) whether the district court abused its discretion in ruling Lamar’s out-of-court statements regarding his trial testimony were not admissible as statements against penal interest, (2) whether the district court abused its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion for a new trial based on recanted trial testimony, (3) whether the rule announced in Miller v. Alabama, __ U.S. __, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), applies retroactively to Jackson’s case, and (4) whether Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 9, or Minn. Stat. §§ 244.11, subd. 2, or 590.01, subd. 1 (2014), authorize the supreme court to vacate Jackson’s life sentence without the possibility of release. (Hennepin County)
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Marc G. Kurzman, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 59080 – Case No. A14-1416: An attorney discipline case that presents the question of what discipline, if any, is appropriate based on the facts of the matter.
Tuesday, September 1, 2015
Courtroom 300, Minnesota Judicial Center
State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Richard Ellis Hill, Appellant – Case No. A13-1803: Following a court trial, appellant Richard Hill was convicted of aiding and abetting first-degree sale of a controlled substance. The court of appeals affirmed appellant’s conviction.
On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether the district court applied the wrong standard when it admitted the controlled substance, (2) whether alleged deficiencies in the Saint Paul Police Crime Lab violated appellant’s right to due process, and (3) whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support appellant’s conviction. (Dakota County)
State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Amanda Lea Peltier, Appellant – Case No. A14-1452: Following a jury trial, appellant Amanda Peltier was convicted of first-degree murder while committing child abuse.
On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether the district court erred when it allowed one of the State’s experts to testify that biting a child is a particularly vicious form of child abuse, (2) whether the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument, and (3) whether the district court’s jury instructions misstated the law. (Pope County)
Wednesday, September 2, 2015
Courtroom 300, Minnesota Judicial Center
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Christopher Robert Walsh, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 199813 – Case No. A14-0213: An attorney discipline case that presents the question of what discipline, if any, is appropriate based on the facts of the matter.
Nonoral: Michael Wayne, petitioner, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A15-0426: Following a jury trial, appellant Michael Wayne was convicted of first-degree murder while committing criminal sexual conduct. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. Appellant subsequently filed several petitions for postconviction relief. In 2014, appellant filed a motion to correct his sentence arguing that the failure to submit the lesser-included offense of criminal sexual conduct to the jury created a Hobson’s Choice that compelled the jury to find him guilty of the greater offense of first-degree murder while committing criminal sexual conduct.
On appeal to the supreme court, the issue is presented is whether the district court erred when it construed appellant’s motion to correct his sentence as a subsequent petition for postconviction relief. (Waseca County)
Thursday, September 3, 2015
Courtroom 300, Minnesota Judicial Center
328 Barry Avenue, LLC, Appellant vs. Nolan Properties Group, LLC, defendant and third-party plaintiff, Respondent vs. Carciofini Company, Marvin Windows, Inc., Stellar Concrete & Masonary, third party defendants, Respondents – Case No. A14-0724: Appellant 328 Barry Avenue used respondent Nolan Properties Group, LLC (NPG), as the general contractor for the construction of a building. The building had problems with water intrusion. Appellant brought an action claiming that NPG’s actions as general contractor were negligent. The district court dismissed the action as untimely under the 2-year statute of limitations in Minn. Stat. § 541.051, subd. 1(a) (2014), which applies to actions “arising out of the defective and unsafe condition of an improvement to real property.” The court of appeals affirmed.
On appeal to the supreme court, the issues raised in appellant’s brief are: (1) whether there are genuine issues of material fact as to when appellant discovered the injury, (2) whether the statute of limitations in Minn. Stat. § 541.051, subd. 1(a), can be triggered during construction of a building, and (3) whether appellant’s equitable estoppel defense precludes summary judgment on the basis of the statute of limitations in Minn. Stat. § 541.051, subd. 1(a). (Hennepin County)
State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Byron David Smith, Appellant – Case No. A14-0941; State of Minnesota, Appellant vs. Byron David Smith, Respondent – Case No. A15-0300 (consolidated): Following a jury trial, appellant Byron Smith was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder. Appellant filed a direct appeal, which was later stayed to resolve a restitution dispute. When the district court denied restitution for cemetery headstones, the State appealed. The earlier stay was lifted and the two appeals were consolidated.
On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether the district court erred by not dismissing the indictment, (2) whether the trial court’s closure of the courtroom constituted structural error, (3) whether appellant’s right to present a defense was violated, (4) whether the prosecutor committed misconduct in closing argument, and (5) whether the district court erred when it denied restitution for cemetery headstones. (Morrison County)
Tuesday, September 8, 2015
Courtroom 300, Minnesota Judicial Center
Terry Boyd, Respondent vs. BNSF Railway Company, Appellant – Case No. A14-0277: Respondent Terry Boyd initiated an action against appellant BNSF Railway Company in Hennepin County District Court, which included a claim under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. §§ 51–60 (2012). The case proceeded to trial after BNSF rejected a $275,000 offer of settlement from Boyd pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 68.01. The jury awarded damages on Boyd’s FELA claim, which the district court reduced to $411,945. The district court also concluded that Boyd was entitled to $133,751 in costs and disbursements, including enhanced costs and disbursements under Minn. R. Civ. P. 68.03(b)(2), which provides that if a plaintiff makes an offer of settlement before trial “and the relief awarded is less favorable to the defendant-offeree than the offer, the defendant-offeree must pay, in addition to the costs and disbursements to which the plaintiff-offeror is entitled under Rule 54.04, an amount equal to the plaintiff-offeror’s costs and disbursements incurred after service of the offer.” The district court rejected the argument of BNSF that FELA preempts the doubling of post-offer costs and disbursements under Rule 68.03(b)(2). In a divided decision, the court of appeals affirmed.
On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether FELA preempts the cost-doubling rule in Minn. R. Civ. P. 68.03(b)(2). (Hennepin County)
Inquiry into the Conduct of the Honorable Alan F. Pendleton – Case No. A14-1871: The Board on Judicial Standards filed a complaint for disciplinary action against the Honorable Alan Pendleton, a district court judge for the Tenth Judicial District. After an evidentiary hearing, a three-person panel appointed under the Rules of the Board on Judicial Standards found that Judge Pendleton violated the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Minnesota Constitution by living outside of his judicial district from January 15, 2014, through June 2, 2014, and violated the Code of Judicial Conduct by making a knowingly false statement in his affidavit of candidacy for the 2014 general election. The panel recommended to the supreme court discipline of public censure and a suspension of at least 6 months.
Judge Pendleton appealed to the supreme court. The issues before the supreme court include whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the violations, whether procedural violations deprived Judge Pendleton of due process, and what discipline, if any, is appropriate.
Wednesday, September 9, 2015
Courtroom 300, Minnesota Judicial Center
La Vonne Pfeil, Appellant vs. St. Mathews Evangelical Lutheran Church, et al., Respondents – Case No. A14-0605: Appellant La Vonne Pfeil and her late husband Henry Pfeil brought a defamation action against respondents St. Matthew Evangelical Lutheran Church and its pastors after the Pfeils were excommunicated from the church. The district court ruled that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that “any judicial inquiry into the truth of statements made during a church disciplinary proceeding would create an excessive entanglement with the church that would violate the First Amendment.”
On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether the district court erred in its determination that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over appellant’s claims pursuant to the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. (Nobles County)
Nonoral: Kenneth E. Anderson, petitioner, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A14-2210: Following a jury trial, appellant Kenneth Anderson was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder. The issue of restitution was left open for 30 days. On direct appeal, the conviction was affirmed. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, which was denied. When appellant’s prison wages were garnished for restitution, he filed motion requesting a restitution hearing. The district court denied the motion.
On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether the district court erred when it denied appellant’s motion for a restitution hearing. (Becker County)