EN BANC CALENDAR

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

Onvoy, Inc., Respondent vs. ALLETE, Inc., f/k/a Minnesota Power, Inc., d/b/a Minnesota Power & Light Company, et al., Appellants – Case No. A05-1497:  In this dispute over the terms of a commercial lease, the complaint of respondent and lessee Onvoy, Inc., against appellants ALLETE, Inc., d/b/a Minnesota Power & Light Company (the lessor) and Enventis Telecom, Inc., included both legal and equitable claims.  A jury heard the parties’ legal claims against each other; Onvoy’s equitable claims, including a request for declaratory judgment that the lease gave Onvoy a right of access to space in the building outside of the leased space sufficient to allow it to interconnect its equipment in the leased space with other telecommunications service providers, were simultaneously tried to the court.  The jury found, among other things, that ALLETE had not breached the lease by denying Onvoy access to space outside the leased space.  The district court entered judgment on the parties’ legal claims in accordance with the jury verdict, but entered declaratory judgment in favor of Onvoy.  The court of appeals affirmed.  At issue is whether a jury verdict on a legal claim binds the district court in its determination of accompanying equitable claims.  (St. Louis County)

State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Detroit Davis, Jr., Appellant – Case No. A06-1481:  On appeal from his conviction of first-degree murder, appellant Detroit Davis, Jr., presents the following issues for review:  (1) whether he was denied a fair trial by the admission of evidence of his prior felony convictions; and (2) whether the prosecution committed misconduct during cross-examination of appellant by commenting on appellant’s ability to listen to the testimony of the state’s witnesses before testifying or during closing argument by characterizing appellant’s testimony as “preposterous.”  (Hennepin County)

State of Minnesota, Appellant vs. Mohammed G. Al-Naseer, Respondent – Case No. A05-1394:  Respondent Mohammed Al-Naseer was convicted of criminal vehicular homicide for leaving the scene of an accident, after his vehicle struck and killed a driver who was changing a flat tire.  Minnesota Statutes § 169.09, subdivision 1 (2006), requires a driver involved in an accident “resulting in immediately demonstrable bodily injury to or death of any person” to stop and remain at the accident scene.  Al-Naseer’s conviction was reversed by the court of appeals on grounds that, although the district court found that Al-Naseer knew his vehicle had struck something, the state failed to prove that Al-Naseer knew his vehicle had struck another person causing bodily injury or death to that person.  The issue before the supreme court is what knowledge, if any, is required for a conviction of leaving the scene of an accident.  (Clay County) 

State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. James Clinton Wren, Appellant – Case No. A06-1283:  On appeal from his conviction of first-degree murder, appellant James Wren presents the following issues for review:  (1) whether the district court committed reversible error by empanelling an anonymous jury; (2) whether the district court committed reversible error by denying Wren’s challenge to the racial composition of the jury under Batson; and (3) whether the prosecution committed misconduct warranting a new trial.  Wren raises additional issues in a pro se supplemental brief.  (Hennepin County)

EN BANC NONORAL:  Reginald Gail, petitioner, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A06-2271:  On appeal from the denial of post‑conviction relief following his conviction of first-degree murder, appellant pro se Reginald Gail presents the following issues for review:  (1) whether the jury selection procedure in use in Hennepin County at the time of his trial embodied racial factors; (2) whether he received effective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal; (3) whether the district court erred in its instructions to the jury; (4) whether the district court erred in its evidentiary rulings; (5) whether he is entitled to a new trial because the jury was sequestered during deliberations; and (6) whether the prosecution committed misconduct in closing argument.  (Hennepin County)

State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Burhan Mohammed Farrah, Appellant – Case No. A05-1277:  Appellant Burhan Mohammed Farrah was convicted of fourth‑degree criminal sexual conduct; his conviction was affirmed by the court of appeals.  On appeal to the supreme court, Farrah presents the following issues:  (1) whether he clearly and unequivocally invoked his right to counsel, requiring suppression of his subsequent statement to investigators; (2) whether his waiver of his Miranda rights was knowing and intelligent; (3) whether officers violated Minn. Stat. § 611.32, subd. 2 (2006) (requiring that an interpreter be provided for criminal suspects who are handicapped in their communications) by questioning him without an interpreter, and whether a violation of section 611.32 requires suppression of statements obtained without an interpreter; and (4) whether the district court erred in admitting the victim’s prior consistent statements as substantive evidence.  (Hennepin County)

James E. Gluba, deceased, by Lorraine Gluba, Relator vs. Bitzan & Ohren Masonry and Grinnell Mutual Group, Respondents – Case No. A06-1849:  Minnesota Statutes § 176.101, subdivision 4 (2006), awards workers compensation benefits to those workers who have permanent total disability.  Minnesota Statutes § 176.101, subdivision 5(2) (2006), defines “permanent total disability” to include any injury that totally and permanently incapacitates the employee from working, provided that the employee also has a permanent partial disability rating of the whole body.  The required percentage of permanent partial disability varies with the employee’s age and education.  Relator James Gluba, who had an eighth-grade education and was injured at age 69, sought permanent total disability benefits but was denied them on grounds that his whole-body permanency rating was less than the required threshold for a worker of his age and education level.  The Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals affirmed.  The issue before the supreme court is whether Minn. Stat. § 176.101 is unconstitutional because it does not provide equal protection to all injured workers.  (Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals)

Diane Lorix, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellant vs. Crompton Corporation, et al., Respondents, Flexsys NV, et al., Defendants, Bayer Corporation, Respondent – Case No. A05-2148:  Appellant Diane Lorix sued respondents Crompton Corporation, Uniroyal Chemical Co., Inc., Uniroyal Chemical Company, Ltd., and Bayer Corporation, among others, accusing them of conspiring to fix the price of chemicals used to process rubber used in automobile tires.  The district court dismissed the complaint on grounds that Lorix lacked standing under Minn. Stat. § 325D.57 (2006) to bring an antitrust claim because Lorix purchased only tires and not the chemicals themselves.  The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal.  Section 325D.57 allows any person “injured directly or indirectly” by a violation of the Minnesota Antitrust Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 325D.49-.66 (2006), to recover treble damages, costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorney fees.  At issue before the supreme court is whether section 325D.57 limits plaintiffs in antitrust suits, as the district court concluded, to “consumers and competitors in the market restrained by the alleged antitrust violation.”  (Wilkin County)

EN BANC NONORAL:  Brian Keith Pippitt, petitioner, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A06-2106:  Appellant Brian Pippitt’s conviction of first-degree premeditated murder was affirmed on direct appeal.  On appeal from the denial of postconviction relief, Pippitt presents the following issues for review:  (1) whether the district court erred in denying his motion for a new trial based on newly‑discovered evidence; (2) whether he received effective assistance of counsel at trial; and (3) whether his claim of prosecutorial misconduct should not be barred under State v. Knaffla, even though it was not raised on direct appeal, because he first learned of the alleged misconduct during postconviction proceedings.  Pippitt raises additional issues in a pro se supplemental brief.  (Aitkin County)

In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Dewey M. Nelson, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 77677 – Case No. A06-1370:  An attorney discipline matter that presents the question of what discipline, if any, is appropriate upon the facts of the matter.

EN BANC NONORAL:  Afton Historial Society Press, Relator vs. County of Washington, Respondent – Case No. A07-3:  Relator Afton Historical Society Press challenged the assessment of property taxes on property it owns in Washington County, claiming the property is exempt from real estate taxation under Minn. Stat. § 272.02, subd. 7 (2006), because it is an institution of purely public charity.  The Minnesota Tax Court concluded that the Press is not an institution of purely public charity under the six‑factor analysis of North Star Research Inst. v. County of Hennepin, 306 Minn. 1, 236 N.W.2d 754 (1975).  On appeal to the supreme court, the Press questions:  (1) whether the tax court correctly applied the North Star factors; and (2) whether the tax court imposed on it an unduly strict burden of proof.  (Minnesota Tax Court)

EN BANC NONORAL:  State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Justin Paul Farnsworth, Appellant – Case No. A06-258:  Appellant Justin Farnsworth was charged with three counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct.  On the day of trial, Farnsworth pleaded guilty to one count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, but Farnsworth was allowed to withdraw his guilty plea after the district court later ruled that portions of his statement to police were obtained through coercive interrogation techniques.  The court of appeals reversed the district court’s order allowing Farnsworth to withdraw his guilty plea.  There are two issues before the supreme court:  (1) whether the district court erred in suppressing portions of Farnsworth’s statement to police; and (2) whether the district court erred in allowing Farnsworth to withdraw his guilty plea.  (Dakota County)

State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Farah Abshir Warsame, Appellant – Case No. A05-488:  Appellant Farah Warsame was charged with domestic assault and making terroristic threats.  The district court ruled that statements made by the alleged victim to police were not admissible because they were testimonial in nature and therefore violated Warsame’s rights under the Confrontation Clause.  The court of appeals reversed and, after the supreme court denied review, Warsame appealed to the United States Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals decision and remanded the case to the court of appeals for reconsideration in light of the Court’s decision in Davis v. Washington, 126 S. Ct. 2266, 2273-74 (2006) (defining statements made to police as nontestimonial when they are made “under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency”).  On remand, the court of appeals again ruled that the alleged victim’s statements are admissible because they are not testimonial in nature.  The issue before the supreme court is whether the alleged victim’s statements to police are admissible at trial because they were made during an “ongoing emergency” and therefore are not testimonial in nature.  (Hennepin County)

EN BANC NONORAL:  Ronald E. Byers, Relator vs. Commissioner of Revenue, Respondent – Case No. A06-2450:  Relator Ronald Byers, acting pro se, presents the following issues for review by the supreme court:  (1) whether Minn. R. Civ. P. 63.02 required the judge of the Minnesota Tax Court hearing his appeal to recuse herself from his case after finding him in contempt of court in another case for failing to respond to a subpoena for production of documents; (2) whether Minn. R. Gen. P. 106 requires that the chief judge of the Minnesota Tax Court hear his appeal from the denial of his motion to remove the judge presiding over his case; and (3) whether the tax court erred in finding that he failed to report certain income.  (Minnesota Tax Court)