EN BANC CALENDAR

Before the Minnesota Supreme Court
June 2012
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
Summaries prepared by the Supreme Court Commissioner’s Office

            Marie Delores Green, Respondent vs. BMW of North America, LLC, a foreign limited liability company qualified to do business in the State of Minnesota, Appellant – Case No. A11-0581:  Respondent Marie Green brought an action against appellant BMW of North America, LLC, asserting violations of Minnesota’s Lemon Law, Minn. Stat. § 325F.665 (2010), as well as warranty claims.  Following a bench trial, the district court awarded Green $25,157 in damages and $221,499 in statutory attorney fees under the Lemon Law.  The court of appeals affirmed.  

On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether the district court abused its discretion by awarding attorney fees in an amount more than eight times the award of compensatory damages.  (Hennepin County)

            In re Petition of JaneAnne Murray, for Waiver of Requirements Under Rules 4A and 7A of the Rules for Admission to the Bar – Case No. A12-0568:  A petition for waiver of the requirements under Rules 4A and 7A of the Rules for Admission to the Bar.         

            State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. R.H.B., Appellant – Case No. A11-0660: In 2007, respondent State of Minnesota charged appellant R.H.B. with first- and third-degree assault.  A jury found R.H.B. not guilty on all charges.   Following his acquittal, R.H.B. filed a petition for expungement pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 609A.02, subd. 3 (2010), which allows a person to file a petition to seal records after a criminal proceeding was resolved in favor of the petitioner.  The expungement statute further provides that when a criminal proceeding was resolved in the petitioner’s favor, the district court “shall grant the petition to seal the record unless the agency or jurisdiction whose records would be affected establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the interests to the public and public safety outweigh the disadvantages to the petitioner of not sealing the record.”  Minn. Stat. § 609A.03, subd. 5(b) (2010).  The district court granted R.H.B.’s request for expungement; the court of appeals reversed the district court.

            On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether a petitioner seeking expungement under Minn. Stat. § 609A.02, subd. 3, has the burden to establish specific disadvantages that will occur to him or her if records are not sealed.  (Wright County)

In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against David Lawrence McCormick, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 259500 – Case No. A11-1052:  An attorney discipline case that presents the question of what discipline, if any, is appropriate based upon the facts of the matter.       

State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Jerry Ben Retzlaff, Appellant – Case No. A10-2202:  Appellant Jerry Retzlaff was convicted of first-degree driving while impaired (“DWI”).  In order to convict Retzlaff of a first-degree DWI offense, respondent State of Minnesota was required to prove that he had a prior criminal-vehicular-operation conviction under Minn. Stat. § 609.21, subd. 1 (2010).  Retzlaff has never been convicted of violating section 609.21, subdivision 1, though he has been convicted of criminal vehicular operation under a predecessor statute, Minn. Stat. § 609.21, subd. 2a (2006).
 
On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether Retzlaff’s prior conviction of criminal vehicular operation can be used to enhance his current DWI to a first-degree offense.  (Mille Lacs County)

            Benjamin J. Verjovsky, Appellant vs. Mental Health Resources, Inc., Respondent – Case No. A11-0454:  Appellant Benjamin Verjovsky was given a notice of eviction from his apartment for failure to pay a portion of his monthly rent.  Verjovsky received housing assistance under the Section 8 Mainstream Program for People with Disabilities, administered by respondent Mental Health Resources, Inc.  The Section 8 program in which Verjovsky participated permits eviction only for “serious and repeated violations of terms and conditions of the Lease” and permits termination of housing assistance for “a serious violation of the lease.”  After Verjovsky’s eviction, his housing benefits were terminated.  Verjovsky appealed the termination of benefits and provided the hearing officer with evidence that the past-due rent and the landlord’s damages had been paid, allowing Verjovsky to remain in the apartment.  The hearing officer upheld the termination of benefits; the court of appeals affirmed.  At issue before the supreme court is whether Verjovsky’s Section 8 benefits were properly terminated.  (Mental Health Resources, Inc.) 

            State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Alfunda Scruggs, Appellant – Case No. A11-0950:  Appellant Alfunda Scruggs was convicted after a jury trial of first-degree murder.  On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented:  (1)  whether Scruggs is entitled to a new trial because the district court did not instruct the jury that a particular witness was an accomplice; (2) whether Scruggs is entitled to a new trial because the district court gave an incomplete accomplice-corroboration jury instruction; (3) whether Scruggs is entitled to a new trial because the district court erroneously admitted Spreigl evidence; and (4) whether Scruggs’ statement to police should have been suppressed because he was in custody at the time of the statement and was not read his Miranda rights.  (Hennepin County)

            State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Tylar James Hokanson, Appellant – Case No. A11-0359, A11-2227:  Appellant Tylar Hokanson was convicted after a jury trial of first-degree murder.  Hokanson’s appeal of his conviction was stayed in order for him to pursue postconviction relief. Hokanson filed a petition for postconviction relief, which the district court denied.  Hokanson’s appeal of his conviction and of the order denying postconviction relief were consolidated on appeal.

            On appeal to the supreme court, the issues presented are:  (1) whether Hokanson is entitled to a new trial because the district court denied his request to admit alternative perpetrator evidence; (2) whether Hokanson is entitled to a new trial because the district court did not allow him to have full access to child protection files and instead provided him with some documents from these files after the court engaged in an in camera review of the files; (3) whether there was sufficient evidence to prove that Hokanson engaged in a past pattern of child abuse; and (4) whether Hokanson is entitled to a new trial because the district court erroneously instructed the jury on the burden of proof on the element of a past pattern of child abuse.   (Dakota County)

In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against John O. Murrin, III, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 7679X – Case No. A11-0108:  An attorney discipline case that presents the question of what discipline, if any, is appropriate based upon the facts of the matter.