EN BANC CALENDAR
Before the Minnesota Supreme Court
February 2025
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
Summaries prepared by the Supreme Court Commissioner’s Office
Monday, February 3, 2025
Supreme Court Courtroom, State Capitol Building, Second Floor
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jason Turner Johnson, Appellant – Case No. A24-0245: Appellant Jason Johnson pleaded guilty to second-degree burglary. The district court stayed execution of a prison sentence and placed Johnson on probation. On January 17, 2024, Johnson appeared before the district court on his fifth probation violation. Johnson asked the district court to revoke his probation and execute his prison sentence. Over the objection of respondent the State of Minnesota, the district court awarded Johnson 60 days of jail credit for time spent in North Dakota. The State filed a notice of appeal from the “sentencing order issued on January 17, 2024.” Johnson moved to dismiss the State’s appeal arguing the execution of a previously stayed sentence at a probation revocation hearing did not constitute a new sentencing order because it simply executed the previously imposed sentence. The court of appeals denied Johnson’s motion to dismiss the State’s appeal.
The supreme court granted review on the following issue: whether the rules of criminal procedure authorize state sentencing appeals of jail credit determinations from revocation orders. (Clay County)
Carlos Heard, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A23-1511: In 2011, appellant Carlos Heard was convicted of third-degree depraved-mind murder. In 2023, Heard filed his fifth postconviction petition, arguing that his conviction for third-degree depraved-mind murder should be reversed. Heard claimed that two decisions—State v. Coleman, 957 N.W.2d 72 (Minn. 2021) and State v. Noor, 964 N.W.2d 424 (Minn. 2021)—announced new rules regarding the mental state for third-degree depraved-mind murder that applied retroactively to his case, and that based on those new rules, there was insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction. He also argued that his petition was not time barred because he satisfied the new-interpretation-of-law exception to the time bar. See Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(b)(3) (2024).
The district court denied Heard’s fifth postconviction petition. The court of appeals affirmed.
The supreme court granted review on the following issue: whether the supreme court’s decisions in State v. Noor, 964 N.W.2d 424 (Minn. 2021), and State v. Coleman, 957 N.W.2d 72 (Minn. 2021)—together and separately—announced new rules for the purposes of both retroactivity and the new-interpretation-of-state-law exception to the two-year time bar in the postconviction statute. (Hennepin County)
Tuesday, February 4, 2025
Supreme Court Courtroom, State Capitol Building, Second Floor
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Leah Christina Graeber – Case No. A24-0067: In 2011, appellant Leah Graeber was civilly committed as mentally ill and dangerous after an incident in which she killed an 11-year-old boy in a car crash. Since that time, Graeber has been in a secure treatment facility. In 2023, a licensed psychiatrist treating Graeber petitioned the district court for authorization to administer electroconvulsive therapy. After a contested hearing, the district court issued an order authorizing electroconvulsive therapy for Graeber without her consent.
Graeber appealed. In the court of appeals, she argued that the record does not support the district court’s determination that the treatment was presently needed or required to preserve her life or health under Minn. Stat. § 253B.03, subd. 6(b) (2024). The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s order. The court of appeals concluded that the district court properly analyzed the factors outlined in Price v. Sheppard, 239 N.W.2d 905 (Minn. 1976), and the record supported the district court’s findings.
The supreme court granted review on the following issue: whether, when considering requests for forced administration of treatment to civilly committed persons, the Price factors adequately consider the requirement from In re Kinzer, 375 N.W.2d 526 (Minn. App. 1985), that the treatment be presently medically necessary and the statutory requirement that the treatment be necessary to preserve life or health. (Dakota County)
Wednesday, February 5, 2025
Supreme Court Courtroom, State Capitol Building, Second Floor
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Johnnie Lerma, Appellant – Case No. A23-0947: Respondent State of Minnesota charged appellant Johnnie Lerma with several criminal offenses. A jury trial was held in May 2022. On the morning of the second day of jury deliberations, the district court learned that one of the jurors had been in close contact with someone who had tested positive for COVID-19. After discussing the issue with the parties, the district court brought the jury into the courtroom. It told the jury that it was ending deliberations because one of them had been exposed to COVID-19 and asked the jury foreperson if they had reached unanimous verdicts. The foreperson indicated that they had reached unanimous verdicts on three of the five counts but none of the verdict forms were signed. The district court informed the jury that verdicts are not final until signed. It told the jury they would need to go into the large courtroom next door, use it as a jury room, and the foreperson would sign the verdicts in the jury’s presence.
The jurors then began asking the district court questions. The jurors asked what a mistrial was and whether they could change their votes. The district court responded to the questions without consulting with counsel.
The district court sent the jury to another courtroom to sign any verdict form on any count for which they had reached unanimity. When the jury was brought back into the courtroom, the foreperson indicated that they did not have unanimous verdicts on any of the charged offenses. The district court declared a mistrial on all counts.
Several months later, Lerma moved to dismiss, claiming prosecution was barred by double jeopardy because the mistrial was induced by judicial misconduct. Lerma argued the district court intentionally provoked the mistrial through its additional instructions after it told the jury to cease deliberating, which were given without notice to the parties. At a hearing on the motion, Lerma argued a structural error had occurred. The district court denied the motion.
Lerma appealed the order denying his motion to dismiss. The court of appeals affirmed.
The supreme court granted review of the following issues: (1) whether it is structural error barring re-trial for the district court, without notice to or consulting counsel, to instruct the jury that under the law, a mistrial leaves the case for another jury to decide, whereupon the jury retires to sign verdict forms and changes three unanimous verdicts to deadlocks on all five counts; and (2) whether an objection to jury instructions is properly preserved for appeal when first brought as a post-trial motion. (Hennepin County)
Joel Armen Underwood, III., Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A23-1524: In 1998, appellant Joel Underwood, III, pleaded guilty to third-degree assault, a crime of violence. When he was discharged from probation in 2000, the district court’s discharge order stated Underwood was “not entitled to ship, transport, possess or receive a firearm until 10 years” after the date of the order, which was consistent with the law at the time. In 2003, the Legislature amended Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd. 3, to impose a lifetime prohibition on firearm possession for individuals convicted of a crime of violence, rather than a 10-year prohibition
In 2021, Underwood was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm; the predicate crime of violence was his 1998 third-degree assault conviction. In December 2022, Underwood pleaded guilty to the charge. In January 2023, he petitioned for postconviction relief, claiming a due process violation because the State charged him with prohibited person in possession of a firearm, but the district court informed him in 2000 that he was only prohibited from possessing a firearm for 10 years. He also claimed his plea was inaccurate because he did not admit he knew he was prohibited from possessing a firearm.
The supreme court granted review on the following issues: (1) whether Underwood’s constitutional right to due process was violated when the State convicted him of unlawfully possessing a firearm despite a district court order having earlier assured him that he could possess one; and (2) whether Underwood’s plea to unlawfully possessing a firearm was inaccurate and invalid where, in his plea colloquy, he asserted he did not know that his 20-year-old conviction, for which his civil rights had been restored, made him ineligible to possess a firearm. (Anoka County)
Thursday, February 6, 2025
Supreme Court Courtroom, State Capitol Building, Second Floor
In re the Marriage of: Hillary Mercer Graves, Appellant, vs. Richard Charles Graves, Respondent – Case No. A23-1620: In their divorce, appellant Hillary Graves and respondent Richard Graves agreed to joint custody of their two children. Appellant subsequently sought permanent, sole custody of the children, citing concerns about respondent’s mental health. Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied the motion. The district court found that respondent had “sufficiently demonstrated he is addressing his mental health” and that appellant had not met her burden to establish endangerment. The court of appeals affirmed in a divided decision.
The supreme court granted review on the following issue: whether “present environment,” as that phrase is used in the endangerment provision of Minnesota’s custody‑modification statute, Minn. Stat. § 518.18(d)(iv) (2024), permits a court to consider future predictions of a parent’s behavior. (Rice County)
Lisa Demuth, et al., Petitioners, vs. Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon, Respondent – Case No. A25-0157: This matter involves a petition for a writ of quo warranto brought directly before the supreme court under Minn. Stat. § 480.04 (2024).
Petitioners Lisa Demuth and Harry Niska filed a petition for a writ of quo warranto against respondent Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon. The petition alleges that the Minnesota House of Representatives has lacked a quorum since the start of the legislative session, and that actions taken by Secretary of State Simon in the house have frustrated the ability of those members present to “adjourn from day to day and compel the attendance of absent members in the manner and under the penalties it may provide,” as provided in Article IV, Section 13 of the Minnesota Constitution.
The issues presented in the petition and response include: (1) whether Secretary of State Simon has authority to unilaterally adjourn the House in the absence of a quorum; (2) whether Secretary of State Simon has authority to refuse to consider motions to compel the attendance of absent members in the absence of quorum; and (3) whether petitioners’ claims are justiciable. (Original Jurisdiction)
Nonoral: In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Kristi D. McNeilly, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0341265 – Case No. A22-0574: An attorney discipline case that presents the question of what discipline, if any, is appropriate based on the facts of the case.