EN BANC CALENDAR

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

State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Jerome Emmanuel Davis, Appellant – Case No. A10-0731:  Appellant Jerome Davis was convicted after a jury trial of first-degree murder.  On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented:  (1) whether Davis’s May 18, 2007, statement to police should have been suppressed because Davis did not voluntarily waive his Miranda rights; (2) whether Davis is entitled to a new trial because the district court allowed a witness to testify that he was afraid to testify at Davis’s trial; (3) whether the district court abused its discretion by refusing to allow Davis to admit the hearsay statements two people made to a responding police officer; (4) whether Davis is entitled to a new trial because the district court gave a no-adverse-inference instruction regarding Davis’s decision not to testify; and (5) whether Davis is entitled to a new trial because of the cumulative effect of the alleged errors he raised.  (Hennepin County)      

 
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Nathaniel Patrick Hobbs, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 336932 – Case No. A11-1999:  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. Betsy Marie Hanks, Appellant – Case No. A11-0749:      Appellant Betsy Hanks was convicted after a jury trial of first-degree murder.  On appeal to the supreme court, Hanks presents two issues:  (1) whether Hanks is entitled to a new trial because the district court excluded her proffered expert testimony on battered woman’s syndrome; and (2) whether Hanks is entitled to a new trial because the district court excluded evidence of the victim’s behavior toward Hanks.  (Beltrami County) 

            State of Minnesota, Respondent v. Brandon Dominic Cox – Case No. A11-0240:  Appellant Brandon Cox was convicted after a jury trial of first-degree murder and being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm.  On appeal to the supreme court, two issues are presented:  (1) whether Cox is entitled to a new trial because the district court denied his request to give an accomplice corroboration jury instruction; and (2) whether the district court committed plain error affecting Cox’s substantial rights when it instructed the jury to keep deliberating after the jury indicated that it was deadlocked on one of the charges.  (Hennepin County)

            James R. Williams, Respondent vs. Orlando Henry "Tubby" Smith, et al., Appellants – Case No. A10-1802, A11-0567:  Respondent James Williams brought a negligent misrepresentation claim against appellants Orlando Henry “Tubby” Smith and the University of Minnesota after the University withdrew an offer to hire Williams as an assistant basketball coach.  Following a jury trial, the district court awarded Williams $1 million in damages.  The court of appeals affirmed.  

On appeal to the supreme court, the issues presented are:  (1) whether a person negotiating a contract with a government entity is conclusively presumed to know the extent of authority of the government representative, and (2) whether a duty of care exists during negotiations between a prospective employer and a potential employee.  (Hennepin County)

Frank Duane Lussier, petitioner, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A11-2023:  In 2003, appellant Frank Lussier pleaded guilty to and was convicted of first-degree murder.  In 2011, Lussier filed a petition for postconviction relief seeking to withdraw his guilty plea, which was denied by the district court.  On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented:  (1) whether Lussier’s postconviction request to withdraw his guilty plea was timely; (2) whether the two-year time limitation for filing a petition for postconviction relief in Minn. Stat.          § 590.01, subd. 4(a) (2010), is unconstitutional because it violates separation of powers and denies a person convicted of a crime the right of one review by an appellate or postconviction court; (3) whether the supreme court should invoke its inherent authority to review convictions and review Lussier’s conviction; and (4) whether Lussier’s guilty plea contained an adequate factual basis.  (Beltrami County)

            Engineering & Construction Innovations, Inc., Respondent v. L.H. Bolduc Co., Inc., The Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut, Appellants – Case No. A11-0159:  As part of a wastewater pipeline project, respondent Engineering & Construction Innovations, Inc. (ECI) was to construct cofferdams around certain parts of the pipeline.  ECI subcontracted with appellant L.H. Bolduc Co., Inc., to drive sheet metal into the ground, at locations to be identified by ECI, to form the walls of the cofferdams.  After Bolduc completed its work, ECI discovered that a portion of the pipeline was damaged by the sheet metal driven by Bolduc. 

            Minnesota Statutes § 337.02 (2010) makes unenforceable an indemnification provision in a construction contract that requires party A to indemnify party B for party B’s own negligence.  But Minn. Stat. § 337.05, subd. 1 (2010), creates an exception to the prohibition against indemnification agreements for a valid agreement to “provide specific insurance coverage for the benefit of others.” 

            A provision in the subcontractor agreement required Bolduc to indemnify ECI and to include ECI as an additional insured under Bolduc’s commercial general liability policy.  After a jury determined that Bolduc was not negligent in its work on the pipeline, the district court determined that Bolduc’s insurer, appellant Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut, was not required to indemnify ECI.  A divided court of appeals reversed, the majority concluding that the subcontract between ECI and Bolduc required Bolduc to indemnify ECI for damage “alleged to have been caused” by Bolduc. 

            On review to the supreme court, the issues raised by the parties are:  (1) whether an indemnity and insurance provision in a subcontractor agreement that requires the promisor to indemnify and insure the promisee with regard to damages “caused or alleged to have been caused by an act or omission” of the promisor is enforceable under Minn. Stat. §§ 337.02(1) and 337.05, subd. 1, “without regard to fault” for construction-related property damage; (2) what specificity is required under Minn. Stat. § 337.05 in order to construe an agreement that one party procure and maintain insurance as an agreement to procure insurance for the other party’s own negligence; and (3) whether ECI is entitled to coverage under the Bolduc–Travelers policy as an “additional insured” for damages ECI incurred allegedly as a result of its own negligence.  (Ramsey County)

            State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Matthew James Clarkin, Appellant – Case No. A10-1286, A11-0548:  Appellant Matthew James Clarkin was released from prison in April 2008 and placed on intensive supervised release.  In July 2008 Clarkin was found to be in violation of his release conditions and returned to prison to serve the remainder of his sentence.  Meanwhile, Clarkin had become a suspect in two incidents of vandalism but was not charged.  Clarkin was released from prison in February 2009 but was re-arrested in December 2009 in connection with 11 new vandalism incidents that were similar to the two earlier incidents.  Clarkin was charged with all 13 incidents, and in 2009 he was convicted of stalking and sentenced to 35 months in prison, with credit for 114 days in jail.  The district court denied Clarkin’s request for credit for 231 additional days of jail credit for the time he spent in custody between July 2008 and February 2009.  The court of appeals affirmed the denial of jail credit.

            On appeal to the supreme court, the issues presented are: (1) whether the court of appeals erred when it held that because Clarkin committed his new offense while on supervised release he is not entitled to jail credit for time served on a supervised release violation even though Clarkin did not receive a consecutive sentence; and (2) whether Clarkin is entitled to the additional days of jail credit because the State had probable cause to charge him with the stalking count to which he eventually pleaded guilty.  (Hennepin County)

            State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Steven Bernard Radke, Appellant – Case No. A09-0834, A11-2007:       Appellant Steven Radke was convicted after a jury trial of first-degree murder.  Radke’s appeal of that conviction was stayed so that Radke could pursue postconviction relief.  Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied Radke’s petition for postconviction relief.  The stay of Radke’s appeal was then lifted, and Radke’s appeal of the order denying his petition for postconviction relief was consolidated with the appeal of his conviction.  On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented:  (1) whether Radke is entitled to a new trial because the district court excluded evidence of the victim’s specific acts of violence and the victim’s reputation for violence in the community; (2) whether Radke established that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel; (3) whether Radke is entitled to a new trial because the State failed to disclose exculpatory evidence, in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and Minn. R. Crim. P. 9.01; (4) whether the district court committed reversible error in its jury instructions on self-defense; (5) whether Radke is entitled to a new trial because the district court declined to instruct the jury on heat-of-passion manslaughter; and (6) whether Radke is entitled to a new trial because the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument.  (Crow Wing County)

Laura Patino, Respondent vs. One 2007 Chevrolet, VIN # 1GNFC16017J255427, Texas License Plate # 578VYH, Appellant – Case No. A11-0309: Laura Patino is the owner of a 2007 Chevrolet Suburban.  In April 2010 Patino’s then-boyfriend was driving the vehicle when he was arrested for driving while impaired (DWI).  The boyfriend was charged with multiple driving offenses, including second-degree DWI, a “designated offense” under the vehicle forfeiture law, Minn. Stat. § 169A.63 (2010).  In June 2010 the boyfriend pleaded guilty to third-degree DWI, and the second-degree DWI charge was dismissed.  The Minnesota State Patrol initiated forfeiture proceedings based on the boyfriend’s commission of a designated offense.  Following a trial, the district court found that Patino was not an “innocent owner” and ordered the vehicle forfeited.  The court of appeals reversed the forfeiture order.
 
On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether a conviction of a designated offense is required for a judicial determination of forfeiture under Minn. Stat. § 169A.63.  (Nicollet County)