EN BANC CALENDAR

Before the Minnesota Supreme Court
December 2011
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
Summaries prepared by the Supreme Court Commissioner’s Office

State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Dao Xiong, Appellant – Case No. A11-2022:  Following a jury trial, appellant Dao Xiong was convicted of first-degree murder.  On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented:  (1) whether Xiong is entitled to a new trial because the medical examiner testified that the manner of death was homicide; and (2) whether Xiong is entitled to a new trial because a firearms expert testified that in his opinion, the pistol used to shoot the victim could not be fired accidentally.  (Washington County)

State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Adam Lee Sterling, Respondent – Case No. A12-0073:  Following a jury trial, appellant Adam Sterling was convicted of first-degree murder.  On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented:  (1) whether Sterling’s pre-Miranda statement to police should have been suppressed because Sterling was in custody at the time of the statement; and (2) whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain Sterling’s conviction.    (Hennepin County)     

In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Brian Louis Pitera, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 298475 – Case No. A12-0274:  An attorney discipline case that presents the question of what discipline, if any, is appropriate based upon the facts of the matter.           

            Nonoral:        Brian Alexander Clifton, petitioner, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A12-0571:  Following a jury trial, appellant Brian Clifton was convicted of first-degree murder in 2003.  Clifton’s conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.  In September 2011, Clifton filed a petition for postconviction relief, contending that he was entitled to a new trial because of witness recantation and newly discovered evidence.  The district court denied Clifton’s petition for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing.

            On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented:  (1) whether Clifton’s petition for postconviction relief is time-barred; (2) whether Clifton is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claim of witness recantation; and (3) whether Clifton is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claim of newly discovered evidence.  (Hennepin County)

In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Joseph Awah Fru, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 342154 – Case No. A11-1693:  An attorney discipline case that presents the question of what discipline, if any, is appropriate based upon the facts of the matter.           

            Nonoral:  William Jeffrey McDonough, petitioner, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A12-0640:  Following a jury trial, appellant William McDonough was convicted of first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder in 2000.  McDonough’s convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.  McDonough has filed previous postconviction petitions, which have been denied. 

            McDonough filed a postconviction petition in June 2011, challenging the constitutionality of the statute under which he was convicted and claiming the surviving victim had recanted his trial testimony to his cousin.  The district court held an evidentiary hearing at which the surviving victim and his cousin testified.  The surviving victim reaffirmed his trial testimony that McDonough was the shooter and denied having recanted to his cousin.  After the evidentiary hearing, McDonough filed an amended petition for postconviction relief, claiming that the surviving victim had recanted his trial testimony to his brother.  The district court denied both the June 2011 petition for postconviction relief and the amended petition.

            On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented:  (1) whether   the district court abused its discretion in denying petitioner’s claim of recanted trial testimony alleged in his June 2011 petition for postconviction relief; (2) whether petitioner’s constitutional challenge to the statute under which he was convicted is procedurally barred; and (3) whether the district court abused its discretion in summarily denying petitioner’s amended petition for postconviction relief.  (Ramsey County)

            Tsige Abebaw Dereje, Respondent vs. State of Minnesota, Appellant – Case No. A11-1147:  Appellant State of Minnesota charged respondent Tsige Dereje with criminal sexual conduct.  Dereje waived his right to a jury trial and stipulated to the evidence set forth in the police reports.  Defense counsel did not make a closing argument.  The district court found Dereje guilty as charged and entered a judgment of conviction.  Dereje did not file a direct appeal.  In January 2011, Dereje filed a petition for postconviction relief, arguing that his counsel’s decision not to make a closing argument constituted a structural error because it reflected a complete failure to subject the State’s case to meaningful adversarial testing.  The postconviction court’s denial of postconviction relief was reversed by the court of appeals. 

            On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented:  (1) whether Dereje had a valid stipulated facts trial, pursuant to Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.01, subd. 3, when the parties stipulated to the evidence as set forth in police reports but those police reports contained conflicting statements from witnesses regarding what had occurred; and (2) whether defense counsel’s failure to make a closing argument constituted a structural error.  (Hennepin County) 

            In the Matter of:  Vanessa Yoland Rew, and o/b/o T.C.B. and D.S.B., Respondent vs. James Allen Bergstrom, Appellant – Case No. A10-2145:  On behalf of herself and her minor children, respondent Vanessa Rew sought a 50-year extension of an order for protection (OFP) against appellant James Bergstrom under the Domestic Abuse Act, Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 6a (2010).  The district court found that the statutory criteria for the extension had been satisfied, specifically citing appellant’s violations of an OFP on three prior occasions and his recent release from incarceration.  The district court issued an order that extended the previous OFP for a period of 50 years.  Appellant subsequently moved to vacate the order under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02, asserting various constitutional and statutory challenges.  The district court denied the motion.  The court of appeals affirmed.

On appeal to the supreme court, the issues presented are (1) whether Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 6a, is unconstitutional on its face or as applied; (2) whether  the district court erred in interpreting the statute to not require any finding of abuse in order to extend the OFP or order the 50-year duration; and (3) whether the district court erred in excluding appellant’s witnesses from the hearing.  (Washington County)

State of Minnesota, Appellant v. M.D.T., Respondent – Case No. A11-1285:    In 2006 M.D.T. pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated forgery.  The district court stayed imposition of sentence, placed M.D.T. on probation, and ordered her to pay a fine.  In 2008, M.D.T. was discharged early from probation and her remaining fine was forgiven.  M.D.T. has no other criminal record.  In early 2011, M.D.T. petitioned the district court for expungement.  The court, exercising its inherent judicial authority, granted the petition and issued an order sealing all official records of M.D.T.’s arrest and conviction, except the nonpublic record retained by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension.  The court of appeals affirmed the district court.

            On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether the district court abused its discretion when it exercised its inherent judicial authority to expunge criminal records maintained by the judicial branch; and (2) whether the district court exceeded its inherent judicial authority by ordering expungement of judicial-branch records maintained by the executive branch.  (Crow Wing County)

            Nonoral:        Ronald L. Schober, Relator vs. Commissioner of Revenue, Respondent – Case No. 12-0873:  Relator Ronald Schober operates Timber Creek Renovation, a home repair and remodeling business.  In 2006, respondent the Commissioner of Revenue assessed Schober for Minnesota sales taxes collected by Schober from customers of the business but unremitted to the state.  In 2010, the supreme court affirmed the Commissioner’s assessment.  Schober v. Comm’r of Rev., 778 N.W.2d 289 (Minn. 2010). 

            Schober then sought a refund of sales taxes from the Department of Revenue, contending that language in the supreme court’s decision allowed him to return the sales taxes collected to his customers and request a refund from the Department of Revenue.  In 2011 Schober filed a notice of appeal with the Minnesota Tax Court from what Schober contends was the Department’s denial of his refund request.  The tax court dismissed Schober’s appeal. 

            On review before the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether Schober is entitled to a refund of sales taxes; (2) whether the denial of a refund amounts to double taxation; (3) whether the document from which Schober appeals constitutes an order of the Commissioner of Revenue from which an appeal may be taken; and (4) whether Schober can renew his claim that the fine imposed on him in the earlier proceeding was excessive.  (Minnesota Tax Court)

            State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Joel Marvin Munt, Appellant – Case No. A11-2315:  A grand jury indicted appellant Joel Munt for multiple offenses, including first-degree murder.  Munt pleaded not guilty and also not guilty by reason of mental illness.  Following a bifurcated jury trial, Munt was convicted of multiple offenses, including first-degree murder. 

            On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented:  (1) whether the district court abused its discretion when it denied Munt’s request to remove a potential juror for cause; (2) whether Munt was denied his right to a trial before an impartial judge because the district court instructed the jury about when the second phase of the bifurcated trial would begin before the jury found Munt guilty in the first phase; (3) whether Munt is entitled to a new trial because the district court denied Munt’s request to testify as a surrebuttal witness about his reason for having car seats in his vehicle; (4) whether the district court abused its discretion when it determined that Munt’s nine-year-old daughter was not competent to testify at his trial; and (5) whether the trial court erred when it failed to inquire about Munt’s complaints about his counsel.  (Blue Earth County)

            Nonoral:  Eugene Erick Fort, petitioner, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A12-0617:  Following a jury trial, appellant Eugene Fort was convicted of first-degree murder in 2007.  Fort’s conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.  In July 2011, Fort filed a petition for postconviction relief, in which he claimed he was entitled to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence and asked the district court to conduct a hearing on DNA testing done on a 12-inch smear of blood found at the scene of the murder.  The district court summarily denied Fort’s petition for postconviction relief.

            On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented:  (1)  whether the district court abused its discretion when it denied Fort’s request for a hearing on the DNA testing that was done on the blood smear; and (2) whether the district court abused its discretion when did not hold an evidentiary hearing on Fort’s claim of newly discovered evidence.  (Hennepin County)