EN BANC CALENDAR

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

State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Earl Wembley, Appellant – Case No. A05‑245:  On appeal from his conviction of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, appellant Earl Wembley presents for review the question whether he should receive a new trial because he was entitled to be present while the jury reviewed, during its deliberations, the videotaped interview of the complainant.  (Hennepin County)

Hoyt Properties, Inc., et al., Respondents vs. Production Resource Group, L.L.C., et al., Appellants – Case No. A05-1293:  Appellants Production Resource Group, Haas Multiples Environmental Marketing and Design, Inc., d/b/a Entolo-Minneapolis, and Entolo, Inc., appeal from a court of appeals decision reinstating a lawsuit against them, brought by respondents Hoyt Properties, Inc., and Hoyt/Winnetka, LLC, alleging fraudulent inducement in the settlement of litigation.  At issue are:  (1) whether statements made by appellants’ counsel during the settlement negotiations were statements of fact or a legal opinion; and (2) whether a reasonable jury could have concluded that respondents actually and reasonably relied on the statements.  (Hennepin County)

Ted Harrison, Jr., a minor, by Audrey Harrison, his guardian ad litem, Respondent vs. Amy Harrison, et al., Appellants – Case No. A05-1038:  Respondent Ted Harrison, Jr., then three years old, was injured when the car in which he was riding was struck by another car, and he was released from his car seat and ejected from the vehicle.  Respondent, through his guardian ad litem, sued his parents for negligence in installing and maintaining the car seat.  The district court ruled, and the court of appeals affirmed, that respondent’s suit could go forward despite Minnesota’s “seat belt gag rule,” Minn. Stat. § 169.685 (2004).  Section 169.685 generally bars the introduction of evidence of the use of seat belts or child passenger restraints in any litigation involving personal injuries resulting from the use or operation of a motor vehicle, but includes an exception for cases involving “a defectively designed, manufactured, installed, or operating seat belt or child passenger restraint system.”  The issue on appeal is whether respondent’s claims fall within the exception.  (Anoka County)

In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Q.F.C. – Case No. A06-345:  An attorney discipline matter that presents the issue of what discipline, if any, is appropriate based upon the facts of the matter.

State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Keith Hapana Crow, Appellant – Case No. A06-229:  Appellant Keith Hapana Crow appeals from his convictions of aiding and abetting murder in the second degree and aiding and abetting first-degree murder (kidnapping).  At the conclusion of appellant’s trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty of aiding and abetting murder in the second degree, which was read in open court.  The jury then informed the district court that it had reached verdicts on the other counts but had not reduced the verdicts to writing.  Appellant contends that the district court’s instructions to the jury to return to the jury room and complete verdict forms as to the other counts constitutes double jeopardy.  Also at issue are:  (1) whether the sentence of life without possibility of release violates the constitutional ban on cruel or unusual punishment; (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to prove appellant guilty of aiding and abetting murder; and (3) whether appellant’s due process rights were violated when he was denied a Frye/Mack hearing on the admissibility of expert testimony.  Appellant raises other issues in a pro se supplemental brief.  (Redwood County)

Inquiry into the Conduct of the Honorable Thomas M. Murphy (retired) – Case No. A06-306:  A judicial discipline matter that presents the issue of what discipline, if any, is appropriate based upon the facts of the matter.

EN BANC NONORAL - In re Charges of Unprofessional Conduct in Panel Case No. 23236 – Case No. A06-1400:  An attorney discipline matter that presents the issue of what discipline, if any, is appropriate based upon the facts of the matter.

State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Dontrell Dyna Flowers, Appellant – Case No. A05-213:  On appeal from his conviction of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, appellant Dontrell Dyna Flowers presents the following issues for review:  (1) whether the search of appellant’s car exceeded the permissible scope of the investigatory stop; (2) whether police had probable cause to arrest appellant; (3) whether the district court improperly permitted appellant to be impeached with a prior conviction; (4) whether the district court should have granted a mistrial after the state’s witness revealed information previously ruled inadmissible; and (5) whether the district court properly instructed the jury that the knowledge required for possession of a firearm could be inferred.  (Hennepin County)

David T. Adams, Relator vs. DSR Sales, Inc., and Milwaukee Insurance Group, Respondents – Case No. A06-1402:  After relator David T. Adams was injured in an accident for which relator received workers’ compensation benefits, he entered into a settlement with the third party responsible for the accident.  At issue in this appeal is whether the workers’ compensation insurer that paid relator’s benefits is entitled to dollar-for-dollar subrogation benefits against the third-party settlement because the insurer had no notice of the pending settlement.  (Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals)

Hans Hagen Homes, Inc., Respondent vs. City of Minnetrista, Appellant – Case No. A05-1686:  Respondent Hans Hagen Homes, Inc., applied for rezoning of certain property within the City of Minnetrista and for expansion of the city’s Municipal Urban Services Area to encompass the property.  The city council denied the application, a decision of which respondent had actual notice, but the city did not give respondent written notice of the decision and the reasons for it within the time specified by Minn. Stat. § 15.99 (2004).  The issue on appeal is whether the city’s failure to give respondent written notice of its decision and the reasons for it within the time provided by statute mandates that the application for rezoning be approved, or whether the court should adopt a requirement that the applicant show prejudice resulting from the city’s failure to notify it of the decision within the prescribed time period.  (Hennepin County)

State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Michael Neal Vance, Appellant – Case No. A05-459:  Appellant Michael Neal Vance appeals from his conviction of third-degree assault and third-degree burglary.  The issue on appeal is whether the district court committed plain error, entitling appellant to a new trial, by failing to instruct the jury that the crime of assault requires the intent to inflict injury.  (Dakota County)