EN BANC CALENDAR

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

State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Trevor Anthony Brown, Appellant – Case No. A06-1038:  Appellant Trevor Anthony Brown’s conviction of first-degree murder was reversed by the supreme court.  Brown v. State, 682 N.W.2d 182 (Minn. 2004).  On retrial, appellant was convicted of second-degree murder and aiding and abetting first-degree murder.  On appeal following the retrial, appellant presents the following issues for review:  (1) whether he was denied a fair trial because the district court excluded evidence that a prosecution witness belonged to the same gang as another person that appellant contends committed the murder; (2) whether he was denied a fair trial because the district court allowed the jury to view a surveillance videotape that was transferred to a computerized format; and (3) whether he was denied a fair trial because the prosecution asked him during cross-examination whether he owned boots with tread similar to footprints found at the murder scene, after the district court had excluded evidence about the footprints.  (Dakota County)

St. Croix Development, LLC, et al., Respondents vs. Mark David Grossman, et al., Appellants – Case No. A06-1879:  Respondents St. Croix Development, LLC, and Montanari Homes, Inc., filed a notice of lis pendens against the residence of appellants Mark and Stephanie Grossman.  The Grossmans moved to dismiss the lis pendens; their motion was denied.  The Grossmans then appealed the denial of the motion to dismiss; the court of appeals dismissed the appeal on grounds that although an order discharging a lis pendens is immediately appealable, an order denying discharge of a lis pendens is not.  At issue before the supreme court is whether an order denying a motion to discharge a lis pendens is immediately appealable, under either Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103.03 or the collateral order doctrine.  (Washington County)

Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Coop, Relator vs. County of Renville, Respondent – Case No. A07-394:  Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Coop appeals from a decision of the Minnesota Tax Court affirming Renville County’s assessment of the estimated market value for tax purposes of the coop’s beet sugar processing plant.  The questions before the supreme court are:  (1) whether the tax court erred in concluding that the coop’s plant qualifies as a special purpose property, making it appropriate to rely solely on the cost approach to value under American Express Financial Advisors, Inc. v. County of Carver, 573 N.W.2d 651, 657 (Minn. 1998); (2) whether the tax court abused its discretion by not considering the comparable sales approach to valuation given that such data was part of the record; (3) whether the tax court erred in concluding that the property’s highest and best use is as a sugar beet processing facility; (4) whether the tax court erred in adopting the valuation of the county assessor; (5) whether tanks, silos, and bins located on the property are non-taxable processing equipment rather than taxable real estate; and (6) whether the tax court erred by not reducing the estimated market value of the property in accordance with evidence of the ratio of sales price to assessed value of other comparable properties.  (Minnesota Tax Court)

State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Courtney Bernard Clark, Appellant – Case No. A06-1765:  On appeal from his conviction of first-degree murder, appellant Courtney Bernard Clark presents the following issues for review:  (1) whether the district court should have suppressed his statements to police, either because at the time of the statements he was going through drug withdrawal and was not capable of making a valid waiver of his Miranda rights or because the statements resulted from improper promises and threats by the police; and (2) whether the district court erred in admitting evidence of his 1994 conviction of attempted first-degree criminal sexual conduct.  (Ramsey County)

State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Johnny Jerome Clark, Appellant – Case No. A06-1464:  On appeal from his conviction of first-degree premeditated and domestic-abuse murder, appellant Johnny Jerome Clark presents the following issues for review:  (1) whether the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt a “past pattern of domestic abuse” by Clark required for conviction of domestic-abuse murder under Minn. Stat. § 609.185(a)(6) (2006); and (2) whether the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the murder was premeditated.  (Dakota County)

Ronald Enright, as attorney-in-fact for S.E., et al., Respondents vs. Robert H. Lehmann, Appellant, Lehmann Engineering, Inc., Defendant – Case No. A06-347:  Respondent Ronald Enright obtained a judgment against appellant Robert H. Lehmann on behalf of respondents S.E. and Marlys Enright.  To collect the judgment, Enright garnished funds in two joint bank accounts.  Although the accounts were titled in the names of Lehmann and his wife, Lehmann’s wife contributed all of the funds in both accounts.  In Park Enterprises v. Trach, 233 Minn. 467, 47 N.W.2d 194 (1951), the court affirmed a district court order allowing a creditor to garnish a joint bank account owned by husband and wife in order to collect a debt owed by the husband.  In 1973, the legislature enacted the Minnesota Multiparty Accounts Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 524.6-201 et seq. (2006), which provides that “a joint account belongs, during the lifetime of all parties, to the parties in proportion to the net contributions by each to the sums on deposit, unless there is clear and convincing evidence of a different intent.”  Minn. Stat. § 524.6-203(a) (2006).  The question for the court is whether funds contributed by Lehmann’s wife to the joint accounts are subject to garnishments for judgments entered against only Lehmann.  (Dakota County)

EN BANC NONORAL:  Louis Buggs, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A06-1058:  Appellant Louis Buggs was convicted of first-degree murder.  On appeal from the denial of his petition for postconviction relief, Buggs challenges the procedures used to establish the pool from which his jury was selected on grounds that African-Americans are substantially underrepresented in the sources from which prospective jurors are drawn.  (Hennepin County)

In re Petition for Reinstatement of David A. Singer, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 101473 – Case No. A05-1136:  An attorney discipline case that presents the question of whether or not to reinstate petitioner David A. Singer to the practice of law. 

EN BANC NONORAL:  Thomas Daniel Rhodes, petitioner, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A07-148:  Thomas Daniel Rhodes appeals from the denial of his second petition for postconviction relief following his 1998 conviction of murder.  Rhodes presents the following issues for review:  (1) whether the district court or one of the members of the jury that convicted him is the more qualified to determine what the jury’s verdict might have been upon the discovery of allegedly new evidence; (2) whether he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal; and (3) whether the issues raised in this postconviction petition are barred because they were or could have been raised in his previous postconviction petition or on direct appeal.  (Kandiyohi County)

EN BANC NONORAL:  Under the Rainbow Child Care Center, Inc., Respondent vs. County of Goodhue, Relator – Case No. A07-468:  Goodhue County appeals from a judgment of the Minnesota Tax Court.  At issue on appeal is whether respondent Under the Rainbow Child Care Center, Inc., qualifies for exemption from property taxes as an institution of purely public charity under Minn. Stat. § 272.02, subd. 7 (2006).  (Minnesota Tax Court)

State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Jessica Ann Wiltgen, Appellant – Case No. A06-152:  On August 13, 2005, appellant Jessica Ann Wiltgen was arrested for driving while impaired and her driver’s license was administratively revoked under Minn. Stat. § 169A.52 (2006).  Wiltgen filed a petition for judicial review of the revocation; the balance of the revocation was stayed and Wiltgen’s driving privileges were temporarily reinstated by order of the court.  On September 13, 2005, before the revocation of her license for the August 13 arrest could be judicially reviewed, Wiltgen was again arrested for driving while impaired.  Wiltgen was charged with second-degree driving while impaired based, in part, on the revocation of her driver’s license for the August 13 arrest.  The district court reduced the charge of second-degree driving while impaired to third-degree driving while impaired on grounds that the August 13 arrest could not be used to enhance the September 13th charge because there had been no judicial review of the August 13 license revocation.  The court of appeals reversed the district court and reinstated the charge of second-degree driving while impaired.  Before the supreme court are two issues:  (1) whether the reduction of the charges against Wiltgen from second-degree to third-degree driving while impaired had a critical impact on the state’s ability to prosecute her; and (2) whether a license revocation for which judicial review has been requested but not yet conducted can be used to enhance the charges stemming from a subsequent arrest.  (Hennepin County)

State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Robert Joseph Jordan, Appellant – Case No. A06-1445:  Appellant Robert Joseph Jordan was charged with possession of a controlled substance.  Jordan moved to suppress evidence obtained during a search of his residence pursuant to a night-time warrant; the district court granted Jordan’s motion.  The state appealed and the court of appeals reversed the district court’s suppression order.  There are two issues before the supreme court:  (1) whether the affidavit supporting the warrant satisfied the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 626.14 (2006), the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and article I, section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution for issuance of a nighttime warrant; and (2) whether the district court erred in suppressing the evidence obtained during the search because Jordan’s expectation of privacy was violated by the search, even though he was not home at the time.  (Aitkin County)