EN BANC CALENDAR

Before the Minnesota Supreme Court
February 2007
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
Summaries prepared by the Supreme Court Commissioner’s Office

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)

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)

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)

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.