EN BANC CALENDAR

Before the Minnesota Supreme Court
April 2013
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
Summaries prepared by the Supreme Court Commissioner’s Office

            In re: Application of Skyline Materials, Ltd. for Zoning Variance – Case No. A11-2030:  Skyline Materials, Ltd., owns a rock quarry that is adjacent to property owned by respondents Michael and Diane Fields.  Skyline applied to appellant Houston County for a variance from the setback requirements of the County Zoning Ordinance.  After the County Board of Adjustment granted the variance, the Fields appealed to the Houston County District Court pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 394.27, subd. 9 (2012).  The County moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the Fields did not serve the notice of appeal on either the Chair of the County Board of Commissioners or the County Auditor, as is required under Minn. R. Civ. P. 4.03(e) when serving a summons at the commencement of an action.  The district court concluded that the appeal of a decision of a county board of adjustment is an ongoing action, rather than the commencement of a new action.  Therefore, the district court denied the motion to dismiss.  The court of appeals affirmed.

On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether, under the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, an “action” has been commenced when a landowner submits a land use application to a municipality.  (Houston County)

            Matthew Roy Nielsen, Appellant vs. 2003 Honda Accord, Respondent – Case No. A12-0217:  Appellant Matthew Nielsen was arrested and eventually charged with first-degree driving while impaired (DWI).  At the time of the offense, Nielsen was driving a 2003 Honda Accord (the car).  The police seized the car and issued Nielsen a notice of intent to keep the car through administrative forfeiture as authorized by Minn. Stat.               § 169A.63 (2012).  Nielsen challenged the forfeiture in court.  The district court dismissed Neilson’s petition challenging the forfeiture.  The court of appeals affirmed the district court.

            On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether the DWI forfeiture statute, Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, is unconstitutional as applied to exempt motor vehicle property, as defined in Minn. Stat. § 550.37, subd. 12a (2012).  (Hennepin County)

State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Christopher Dineaa Bahtuoh, Appellant – Case Nos. A10-1584, A12-1281:  A jury found appellant Christopher Bahtuoh guilty of several offenses, including first-degree drive-by shooting murder committed for the benefit of a gang.  Bahtuoh appealed his conviction, and the supreme court granted his request to stay his appeal in order to pursue postconviction relief.  Bahtuoh filed a petition for postconviction relief, which the district court denied. 

In a consolidated appeal involving Bahtuoh’s direct and postconviction appeals, the following issues are presented to the supreme court: (1)  whether Bahtuoh is entitled to a new trial because the district court erroneously instructed the jury on accomplice liability; (2) whether Bahtuoh received ineffective assistance of counsel; (3) whether the district court abused its discretion when it denied Bahtuoh’s motion for a mistrial; and (4) whether there was insufficient evidence to prove that Bahtuoh intended to aid the shooter in the commission of a crime.  (Hennepin County)

            In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Harvey N. Jones, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 52498 – Case No. A11-1715:  An attorney discipline case that presents the question of what discipline, if any, is appropriate based on the facts of the matter. 

            Northern States Power Co. et al., Respondents vs. Robert T. Pudas, et al., Appellants – Case No. A11-1116:  As part of the CapX2020 projects, respondents Northern States Power Co. and others commenced a series of condemnation actions to acquire easements for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a 345-kilovolt transmission line between Monticello and St. Cloud.  Appellants are landowners who exercised their rights under Minn. Stat. § 216E.12 (2012), known as the Buy-the-Farm statute, to require respondents to acquire a fee interest in their entire parcels.  The district court ruled that the landowners are entitled to awards of minimum compensation under Minn. Stat. § 117.187 (2012) and relocation benefits under Minn. Stat. § 117.52 (2010).  The court of appeals reversed. 

On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether a utility must provide relocation benefits and minimum compensation when landowners exercise their rights under Minn. Stat. § 216E.12 and the utility proceeds to take the land in fee by the power of eminent domain.  (Stearns County)    

            Nonoral:       Otha Eric Townsend, petitioner, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A12-1734:  In 1994, a jury found appellant Otha Townsend guilty of first-degree murder, and Townsend was sentenced to life in prison.  Townsend subsequently pleaded guilty to attempted first-degree murder and was sentenced to 72-months in prison, to be served consecutively to his life sentence.   The supreme court affirmed his convictions on direct appeal.  In May 2012, Townsend filed a motion challenging his sentence.  This motion was Townsend’s fourth request for postconviction relief.  The district court denied the motion. 

            On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented:  (1)  whether the district court erroneously treated Townsend’s motion as a petition for postconviction relief; (2) whether Townsend’s claims are time barred under Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4 (2012); (3) whether Townsend’s claims are procedurally barred by State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 243 N.W.2d 737 (1976); and (4) whether Townsend’s jail credit should apply to his sentence for first-degree murder.  (Ramsey County)

            Nonoral:       Rusttee Allan Torres, petitioner, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A12-0570:  Appellant Rusttee Torres was convicted, following a jury trial, of first-degree murder.  The supreme court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal.  In March 2011, Torres filed his second petition for postconviction relief, based, in part, on newly discovered evidence.  The district court held an evidentiary hearing and then denied Torres’ petition.

            On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether the district court abused its discretion when it concluded that Torres had failed to establish that he was entitled to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.  (Rice County)

            State of Minnesota, Appellant/Cross-Respondent vs. George Cornelius Watkins, Respondent/Cross-Appellant – A11-1793:  Respondent George Watkins was convicted of violations of a domestic abuse no-contact order (DANCO).  In order to convict Watkins, the State was required to prove that he “knowingly violated” the DANCO.  The trial court’s final instructions to the jury omitted this element.  In addition to sentencing Watkins to an executed term of 44 months in prison, the trial court imposed a new 5-year DANCO.  The court of appeals reversed Watkins’s conviction.

            On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether the trial court’s plain error failure to properly instruct the jury on the element of intent was prejudicial as a matter of law; and (2) whether the trial court exceeded its statutory authority when it imposed a DANCO as part of an executed sentence.  (Hennepin County)

            Big Lake Lumber, Inc., Appellant vs. Security Property Investments, Inc., et al., Defendants, 21st Century Bank, Respondent, Wright Lumber & Millwork, Inc., Respondent, Pearson Plumbing Corp., Respondent, J. DesMarais Construction, Inc., Appellant – Case No. A11-2220:  This appeal involves a priority dispute between the mortgage of respondent 21st Century Bank and the mechanic’s liens of appellants Big Lake Lumber, Inc., and J. DesMarais Construction, Inc.  Following a court trial, the district court ruled that the mechanic’s liens had priority over the mortgage.  The court of appeals reversed and remanded

On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether appellants’ mechanic’s liens related back to excavation work performed at the property before the bank recorded its mortgage because the labor provided by appellants contributed to a single improvement on the property.  (Sherburne County)

State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Juan Humberto Castillo-Alvarez, Appellant – Case Nos. A11-1379, A12-0081:  Gregory Erickson was kidnapped in Iowa and then driven to Minnesota where he was murdered.  In 2004, Iowa charged appellant Juan Castillo-Alvarez with the murder of Erickson.  Following a jury trial, Castillo-Alvarez was convicted of second-degree murder.  In 2009, the Iowa Court of Appeals reversed the conviction based on a violation of Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.33, which establishes a speedy trial rule.

In 2010, Minnesota charged Castillo-Alvarez with the murder of Erickson.  Castillo-Alvarez moved to dismiss the charge, claiming the double jeopardy protections of the Minnesota Constitution and Minn. Stat. § 609.045 (2012) barred prosecution.  He also moved to suppress his out-of-state, unrecorded statement to an FBI agent, claiming the statement was obtained in violation of State v. Scales, 518 N.W.2d 587 (Minn. 1994).  The district court denied both motions.  Following a jury trial, Castillo-Alvarez was convicted of second-degree murder.  The court of appeals affirmed the conviction.

On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether the double jeopardy protections of the Minnesota Constitution and Minn. Stat. § 609.045 bar prosecution; and (2) whether Scales applies to out-of-state interrogations.  (Jackson County)    

            State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Eddie Cortez Smith, Appellant – Case No. A11-1687:  Appellant Eddie Smith was driving a car at a speed of more than 50 miles per hour in a residential neighborhood when he hit another car in which 93-year-old Edith Schouveller was a passenger.  Smith had an alcohol concentration of .11 shortly after the accident. 

            Schouveller’s spinal cord was fractured during the accident.  She spent 13 days in the hospital and was then transferred to a nursing home and rehabilitation care center.  After two days at the nursing home, she was admitted to the hospital and diagnosed with pneumonia.  Several days later, doctors determined that Schouveller required intubation.  Schouveller, however, had executed a living will with a do-not-resuscitate order specifying that she not be intubated.  Doctors did not intubate Schouveller, and she died later that evening.

            After a jury trial, Smith was convicted, in part, of criminal vehicular homicide.  The court of appeals affirmed Smith’s conviction.

            On appeal to the supreme court, Smith raises the following issues in his brief:  (1)  whether the State failed to prove that Smith caused the death of Schouveller; (2) whether Schouveller’s do-not-resuscitate order was a superseding cause of Schouveller’s death; and (3) whether Smith is entitled to a new trial because the district court failed to instruct the jury on the effect of a finding that something was a superseding cause of Schouveller’s death.  (Ramsey County)

            In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Allan R. Hawkins, III, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 42663 – Case No. A11-1454:  An attorney discipline case that presents the question of what discipline, if any, is appropriate based on the facts of the matter.