EN BANC CALENDAR

Before the Minnesota Supreme Court
June 2009
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
Summaries prepared by the Supreme Court Commissioner’s Office

In the Matter of the Contest of General Election held on November 4, 2008, for the purpose of electing a United States Senator from the State of Minnesota, Cullen Sheehan and Norm Coleman, contestants, Appellants vs. Al Franken, contestee, Respondent – Case No. A09-697:   Appellants Cullen Sheehan and Norm Coleman appealed the decision of the three-judge trial court in this election contest challenging the result of the U. S. Senate race.  The trial court held that respondent Al Franken received the most legally cast votes.  The issues presented to the supreme court are (1) whether the trial court erred in excluding evidence of disparate application by election officials of the statutory standard governing absentee ballots and of the presence of illegal votes in the certified vote totals; (2) whether the trial court violated equal protection and due process in its adoption of standards for determining if an absentee vote was legally cast; (3) whether the trial court erred in declining to order inspection of election materials from precincts in which appellants allege double-counting of ballots may have occurred; and (4) whether the trial court erred in ruling that missing ballots from a Minneapolis precinct were properly included in the final recount tally.

State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Charles Yang, Appellant – Case No. A07-121 and Charles Yang, petitioner, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A08-1464:  Appellant Charles Yang was convicted after a jury trial of 12 counts of aiding and abetting murder and attempted murder for the benefit of a gang.  After filing an appeal from his convictions, Yang petitioned for postconviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel.  Yang’s postconviction petition was denied without a hearing.  The two appeals are consolidated here.  At issue before the supreme court are the following:  (1) whether the evidence was sufficient as a matter of law to support the convictions; (2) whether Yang is entitled to a new trial because of confusing, disjointed, and incomplete jury instructions; (3) whether Yang’s right of confrontation was compromised by restrictions on his ability to cross-examine cooperating witnesses and Yang’s co-defendants about the reductions in their sentences received in exchange for their testimony against Yang; (4) whether the district court erred in denying Yang’s motion to suppress certain evidence; (5) whether it was plain error for the district court to admit gang-related evidence in light of Yang’s stipulation before trial to gang membership; (6) whether Minn. Stat. § 609.229 (2008), which defines crimes committed for the benefit of a gang and prescribes the punishment for such crimes, is constitutional; (7) whether the prosecution made improper statements during closing argument that deprived Yang of a fair trial; (8) whether the cumulative effect of the district court’s errors mandates a new trial; (9) whether the district court’s imposition of multiple consecutive sentences totaling more than 100 years in prison overly exaggerated Yang’s criminality; and (10) whether in denying Yang’s petition for postconviction relief the district court improperly resolved factual disputes without an evidentiary hearing.  (Anoka County)

State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Booker T. Hodges, Appellant – Case No. A07-1519:  Appellant Booker T. Hodges pleaded guilty to third-degree criminal sexual conduct under a plea agreement that called for him to serve a minimum of 20 years.  Because Hodges had two previous convictions for sex offenses, he was sentenced under Minn. Stat. § 609.3455, subd. 4(a)(1) (2008), which prescribes a sentence of “imprisonment for life.”  For those sentenced under subdivision 4 of section 609.3455, subdivision 5 of section 609.3455 requires the district court to specify a minimum term of imprisonment “based on the sentencing guidelines or any applicable mandatory minimum sentence,” that must be served before the offender can be considered for supervised release.  Hodges argued that the minimum term of imprisonment should have been determined by applying the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines, which would have resulted in a minimum term of imprisonment of 91 months.  The district court sentenced Hodges to a minimum term of 20 years, citing several aggravating factors.  The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s sentence, holding that section 609.3455 requires a minimum term of imprisonment that is at least as long as the sentence called for by the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines.  On appeal to the supreme court, the issue is how a defendant’s “minimum term of imprisonment” under Minn. Stat. § 609.3455, subd. 5, is to be determined.  (Ramsey County)

State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Justin Lamont Buckingham, Appellant – Case No. A08-1331:  Appellant Justin Buckingham was convicted after a jury trial of aiding and abetting first-degree murder and aiding and abetting attempted first-degree murder.  Buckingham was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, two sentences of 180 months each (to be served consecutively), and three sentences of 243 months each (to be served concurrently).  Three issues are before the supreme court on Buckingham’s direct appeal from his convictions:  (1) whether the district court erred by admitting a statement made by Buckingham to police while in custody which was not recorded and which was given outside of the presence of Buckingham’s public defender; (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; and (3) whether Buckingham’s sentences exceed the permissible statutory maximum sentence.  (Hennepin County)

Paulownia Plantations de Panama Corporation, Respondent vs. Ambrose Harry Rajamannan, et al., Appellants – Case No. A07-2199:  Respondent Paulownia Plantations de Panama Corporation sued appellants Ambrose Harry and Concie Rajamannan, Agro-K Corporation, Perla Verde Service Corporation, and Perla Verde SA in Minnesota.  Respondent claims breach of contract, fraud, negligence, theft, unjust enrichment, and deceptive trade practices in connection with a failed timber and pepper business in Panama.  On appellants’ motion, the district court dismissed the complaint under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, conditioned on Panama courts accepting jurisdiction of the dispute.  Respondent Paulownia Plantations appealed to the court of appeals, which reversed the dismissal and reinstated the complaint, concluding that Panama law bars Panama courts from hearing claims previously dismissed elsewhere for forum non conveniens.  The following issues are before the supreme court on appellants’ appeal:  (1) whether Panama is an “available and adequate” alternative forum for this case; (2) whether Minnesota courts are required to give effect to foreign “blocking” statutes, passed to require American courts to resolve claims that they would otherwise dismiss; and (3) whether the district court abused its discretion by conditionally dismissing the case.  (Anoka County)

State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Ryan Adam Johnson, Appellant – Case No. A08-1199:  Appellant Ryan Johnson was convicted after a court trial of first-degree child-abuse murder, first-degree domestic-abuse murder, and second-degree intentional murder.  Johnson was sentenced to life in prison.  Two issues are before the supreme court on Johnson’s direct appeal from his convictions:  (1) whether the evidence was sufficient as a matter of law to support the convictions for first-degree murder; and (2) did the district court err in convicting Johnson of two counts of first-degree murder and one count of second-degree murder for death of a single person.  (Isanti County)

In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Patrick Joseph Farley, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 387773 – Case No. A08-1178:  An attorney discipline case that poses the question of what discipline, if any, is appropriate under the facts of the matter.

In the Matter of the Denial of Certification of the Variance Granted to Robert W. Hubbard by the City of Lakeland – Case Nos. A07-1932 and A07-2006:   Respondent City of Lakeland granted respondent Robert Hubbard a bluffline setback variance.  The Department of Natural Resources issued a notice of nonapproval of the variance.  Hubbard and Lakeland demanded a contested case hearing under the Administrative Procedures Act, and appellants Sierra Club and St. Croix River Association were allowed to intervene as parties.  A hearing was held before an administrative law judge.  The administrative law judge recommended that the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources (Commissioner) affirm the denial of the variance.  On September 18, 2007, the Commissioner issued an order affirming the denial of the variance.  Lakeland and Hubbard appealed to the court of appeals, which reversed the decision of the Commissioner on the grounds that the variance was automatically approved because the Commissioner did not issue his final decision within 60 days of the close of the record in the contested case hearing.  On appeal to the supreme court, appellants raise three issues: (1) does the 60-day rule found in Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. 2 (2008), apply to a contested case hearing governed by the Administrative Procedures Act; (2) does a contested case hearing toll the 60-day rule and when does such tolling end; and (3) did the administrative law judge’s notice that the Commissioner had 90 days to issue a decision extend the 60-day deadline under Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. 3(f) (2008).  (Washington County)

In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against M. S., a Minnesota Attorney  – Case No. A08-1579:  An attorney discipline case that poses the question of what discipline, if any, is appropriate under the facts of the matter.