EN BANC CALENDAR
Before the Minnesota Supreme Court
September 2022
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
Summaries prepared by the Supreme Court Commissioner’s Office
Tuesday, September 6, 2022
Supreme Court Courtroom, State Capitol Building, Second Floor
State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Kim Marie Tate, Appellant – Case No. A21-0359: In 2019, appellant Kim Tate was charged with third-degree sale of a controlled substance. A few days before her trial date, respondent the State of Minnesota asked the district court to allow one of its witnesses to testify via remote videoconference technology (Zoom) because the witness had been exposed to COVID-19 and was required to quarantine for 14 days. The district court overruled Tate’s objection that allowing this form of testimony would violate her constitutional right to confrontation and her request for a continuance. The case proceeded to a jury trial, and the witness testified via Zoom. The jury found Tate guilty of the offense.
The court of appeals affirmed Tate’s conviction. Applying the test from Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836, 850 (1990), it concluded that allowing the use of remote technology for the witness’s testimony did not violate Tate’s right to confrontation.
On appeal to the supreme court, the court granted review on the following issues: (1) what is the proper analytical framework for courts to evaluate whether a defendant’s Confrontation Clause rights were violated when the State’s witness testified by two-way interactive video technology?; and (2) did the district court violate the appellant’s right to confront her witnesses by allowing a witness to testify via Zoom because he was under a precautionary quarantine related to the COVID-19 pandemic? (Becker County)
Windcliff Association, Inc., Respondent vs. Aaron Breyfogle, et al., Appellants – Case No. A21-0700: Appellants the Breyfogles own property and reside in the Windcliff common interest community, which is administered by respondent the Windcliff Association. A restrictive covenant applicable to properties in the Windcliff community states that “outbuildings shall have a maximum size of 1200 square feet (as per Wabasha County zoning restriction).” At the time the covenant was adopted, a Wabasha County zoning ordinance did in fact limit outbuildings to 1,200 square feet, but that ordinance has since been repealed. In 2019, the Breyfogles decided to build a garage. The Association rejected the plans because the proposed garage would total 1,656 square feet, more than the 1,200 square feet referenced in the covenant. The Breyfogles took the position that because of the repeal of the zoning ordinance, the covenant was unenforceable, and they proceeded to build the garage.
The Association sued, alleging, in part, breach of the covenant. During discovery, one of the original developers, who had drafted the covenant, provided an affidavit and sat for a deposition. After the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court concluded that the covenant was ambiguous, that the available extrinsic evidence (that is, the developer’s testimony) conclusively supported the Breyfogles’ interpretation, and that regardless, the court was required to construe ambiguous restrictive covenants against the limitation on the use of property. It therefore granted summary judgment in the Breyfogles’ favor.
The court of appeals reversed in relevant part and remanded. It agreed with the district court that the covenant was ambiguous, but concluded that the correct interpretation was a question for a jury. In so doing, it rejected the Breyfogles’ argument that a rule of strict construction against limitations on the use of property was applicable to this case.
On appeal to the supreme court, the court granted review on the following issue: if a land use covenant is ambiguous, is the ambiguity automatically construed against the land use restriction? (Wabasha County)
Wednesday, September 7, 2022
Supreme Court Courtroom, State Capitol Building, Second Floor
In re State of Minnesota, Petitioner, State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Brian Lee Flowers, Appellant – Case No. A21-1523: A district court convicted appellant Brian Lee Flowers of two counts of first-degree murder and sentenced him to two consecutive sentences of life without the possibility of release. Following an appeal, Flowers’ case was remanded to the district court for a resentencing hearing. After considering the policy governing the recording of inmate phone calls, the district court issued an order prohibiting the prosecutors and investigators assigned to the resentencing hearing from listening to conversations between Flowers and his defense team. Although the order allowed personnel that were not assigned to the resentencing hearing to listen to the recorded phone calls, it prohibited such personnel from communicating any conversations between Flowers and his defense team to the prosecutors and investigators assigned to the resentencing hearing.
Respondent the State of Minnesota filed a petition for a writ of prohibition in the court of appeals, arguing the district court exceeded its lawful authority when it issued the above-described order. The court of appeals granted the State’s petition for a writ of prohibition.
On appeal to the supreme court, the court granted review on the following issues: (1) whether the Sixth Amendment protects attorney-client communications only if such communications are privileged; and (2) whether, during a global pandemic that restricts access to counsel, a district court has the inherent authority to protect the Sixth Amendment rights of incarcerated persons by requiring the State to screen inmates’ recorded calls for attorney-client communications. (Hennepin County)
Nonoral: Kenneth Eugene Andersen, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case Nos. A20-1602, A22-0057: In 2008, a jury found appellant Kenneth Andersen guilty of first-degree murder. The supreme court affirmed Andersen’s conviction on direct appeal.
This consolidated appeal involves Andersen’s third and fourth petitions for postconviction relief. In 2020, Andersen filed his third petition for postconviction relief. This petition alleged, in part, a claim of newly discovered evidence based on shell casings that were found in 2019 in the area where the victim was shot. In 2021, Andersen filed his fourth petition for postconviction relief. This petition alleged claims of newly discovered evidence based on recent letters about Andersen’s case from two separate individuals, J.F. and D.K. The district court denied both petitions without holding an evidentiary hearing.
On appeal to the supreme court, Andersen raises the following issues: (1) whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Andersen’s newly discovered evidence claim based on the shell casings; (2) whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Andersen’s newly discovered evidence claim based on J.F.’s letter; (3) whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Andersen’s newly discovered evidence claim based on D.K.’s letter; and (4) whether Andersen should be granted a new trial in the interests of justice. (Becker County)
Thursday, September 8, 2022
Supreme Court Courtroom, State Capitol Building, Second Floor
State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Berry Alexander Davis, Appellant– Case No. A21-1309: Appellant Berry Davis was indicted on multiple charges for killing one person and attempting to kill another person. The district court granted respondent the State of Minnesota’s motion to try Davis jointly with his co-defendant, Cedric Berry. Following a joint trial, a jury found Davis guilty of first-degree premediated murder, first-degree felony murder, kidnapping, and attempted first-degree premediated murder.
On appeal to the supreme court, Davis raises the following issues: (1) whether the district court committed reversible error by joining Davis and his co-defendant’s cases for trial or by denying Davis’s midtrial severance motions; and (2) whether Davis is entitled to a new trial, under a plain-error analysis, because the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument. (Hennepin County)
State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Cedric Lamont Berry, Appellant – Case No. A21-1310: Appellant Cedric Berry was indicted on multiple charges for killing one person and attempting to kill another person. The district court granted respondent the State of Minnesota’s motion to try Berry jointly with his co-defendant, Berry Davis. Following a joint trial, a jury found Berry guilty of first-degree premediated murder, first-degree felony murder, kidnapping, and attempted first-degree premediated murder.
On appeal to the supreme court, Berry raises the following issues: (1) whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting cell-site location information without holding a Frye-Mack hearing or determining its foundational reliability; (2) whether the district court committed reversible error by joining Berry and his co-defendant’s cases for trial; and (3) whether Berry is entitled to a new trial because the district court abused its discretion by limiting him to eight peremptory strikes. (Hennepin County)
Monday, September 12, 2022
Supreme Court Courtroom, State Capitol Building, Second Floor
Deshon Israel Bonnell, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A22-0084: The district court accepted appellant Deshon Bonnell’s guilty plea to first-degree felony murder while committing aggravated robbery and convicted him of that offense. Bonnell did not file a direct appeal of his conviction.
In October 2021, Bonnell filed a petition for postconviction relief. He argued that he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea because it was not accurate. The district court denied the petition.
On appeal to the supreme court, Bonnell raises the following issues: (1) whether Bonnell’s guilty plea was inaccurate because he did not provide a sufficient factual basis to support the conclusion that he was criminally liable for the predicate offense of aggravated robbery; and (2) whether Bonnell’s guilty plea was inaccurate because he did not provide a sufficient factual basis to support the conclusion that the aggravated robbery and killing occurred during one continuous transaction. (St. Louis County)
Nonoral: Joel Marvin Munt, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A22-0298: Following a bifurcated trial, a jury found appellant Joel Munt guilty of four counts of first-degree murder, one count of second-degree murder, one count of drive-by shooting, two counts of first-degree aggravated robbery, three counts of second-degree assault, three counts of kidnapping, and three counts of criminal vehicular operation causing injury and rejected his not-guilty-by-reason-of-mental-illness defense. The supreme court affirmed Munt’s convictions and sentences on direct appeal.
In August 2015, Munt filed a petition for postconviction relief. The district court summarily denied the petition. The supreme court affirmed.
In July 2021, Munt filed a motion for relief under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02. Munt asked the district court to vacate its order denying his first postconviction petition. The district court denied the motion, concluding it was not made within a reasonable time.
On appeal to the supreme court, Munt raises the following issue: whether the district court erred by concluding his motion for relief under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 was not made within a reasonable time. (Blue Earth County)
Tuesday, September 13, 2022
Supreme Court Courtroom, State Capitol Building, Second Floor
State of Minnesota, Appellant vs. Joel Clarence Velisek – Case No. A21-0275: A law enforcement officer saw respondent Joel Velisek driving a vehicle down a residential driveway toward a road. The officer knew Velisek had a driver’s license that was cancelled as inimical to public safety. After stopping and arresting Velisek for driving after cancellation as inimical to public safety, Minn. Stat. § 171.24, subd. 5 (2020) (license-cancellation statute), the officer observed indicia of impairment and asked Velisek to take a blood test. Respondent State of Minnesota charged Velisek with several offenses, including violating the license-cancellation statute. Velisek filed a motion to suppress, arguing the police did not have probable cause to arrest him for violating the license-cancellation statute because he was not driving on a public street or highway. The district court denied the motion. Velisek waived his right to a jury trial, and the district court found him guilty based on stipulated evidence.
The court of appeals reversed Velisek’s convictions. It determined that a driver violates the license-cancellation statute only by driving on a street or highway in this state and not when driving on private property. As a result, the court of appeals concluded that the officer did not have probable cause to arrest Velisek for violating the license-cancellation statute, and as result, the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress.
On appeal to the supreme court, the court granted review on the following issue: whether Minn. Stat. § 171.24, subd. 5, which makes it a crime for a person whose driver’s license has been canceled as inimical to public safety to operate a motor vehicle in this state, prohibits such a person from operating a motor vehicle on private property. (Beltrami County)
Nonoral: Adl El-Shabazz, f/k/a A.C. Ford, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A22-0304: In 1993, a jury found appellant Adl El-Shabazz guilty of first-degree murder of a peace officer, first-degree premediated murder, and attempted first-degree murder. The supreme court affirmed El-Shabazz’s convictions on direct appeal.
El-Shabazz has filed several petitions for postconviction relief, all of which have been denied. In August 2021, El-Shabazz filed the postconviction petition at issue in this appeal, raising a claim of newly discovered evidence. The district court summarily denied this petition.
On appeal to the supreme court, El-Shabazz raises the following issue: whether El-Shabazz is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine if he is entitled to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. (Hennepin County)