EN BANC CALENDAR

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

            In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Cedrick Scott Ince – Case No. A12-1691:  Appellant Cedrick Ince has two criminal sexual conduct convictions.  Respondent Sibley County filed a petition to civilly commit Ince.  The district court concluded there was clear and convincing evidence that Ince met the requirements for commitment as a sexually dangerous person (SDP) and indeterminately committed Ince to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program.  A divided court of appeals affirmed.

            On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented:  (1) when considering a petition to civilly commit a person as a SDP, what factors should be considered in determining whether a person is highly likely to engage in harmful sexual acts in the future; (2) whether the record established that Ince is highly likely to reoffend; and (3) whether Ince proved that a less-restrictive treatment program was available.  (Sibley County)

            In the Matter of the Welfare of J.H., Child – Case No. A12-1405:  Appellant State of Minnesota filed a petition in juvenile court alleging that respondent J.H. was delinquent for committing first-degree criminal sexual conduct, conspiracy to commit first-degree criminal sexual conduct, and committing first-degree criminal sexual conduct for the benefit of a gang.  The State moved to certify J.H. for prosecution as an adult.  Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 260B.125, subd. 3 (2012), J.H.’s certification was presumed, and J.H. had the burden to rebut this presumption.  The juvenile court determined that J.H. failed to rebut the presumption of certification and granted the State’s motion.  A divided court of appeals reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case to the juvenile court.

            On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether the juvenile court abused its discretion when it determined that respondent failed to rebut the presumption of certification.  (Ramsey County)

            Inquiry into the Conduct of The Honorable George W. Perez – Case No. A12-2118:  The Board on Judicial Standards filed a complaint for disciplinary action against George Perez, who was then a judge of the Minnesota Tax Court.  After an evidentiary hearing, a three-person hearing panel appointed under the Rules of the Board on Judicial Standards found that Perez violated the Code of Judicial Conduct by not issuing timely decisions and falsely certifying his compliance with the time requirement for issuing opinions in Minn. Stat. § 271.20 (2012).  The panel’s recommended discipline included a public censure and a 9-month suspension.  After the panel issued its findings, the Minnesota Senate rejected Perez’s confirmation for a new term.

            Both Perez and the Board appealed to the supreme court.  The issues include whether this proceeding is moot, in light of the fact that Perez is no longer a tax court judge, and what discipline, if any, is the appropriate sanction.

            Nonoral:       Brian Turner, et al., Relators vs. Commissioner of Revenue, Respondent – Case No. A13-0927:  Relators Brian and Dawn Turner filed joint Minnesota income tax returns for the years 2006 through 2009.  After auditing those returns, respondent Commissioner of Revenue issued an order and notice of change in Minnesota income tax, dated January 10, 2012.  The Commissioner mailed a copy of the order to the Turners at their Champlain address on or about January 10, 2012, and Brian Turner received via e-mail a copy of the order on January 10, 2012.  The Turners filed a notice of appeal of the January 10 order with the Minnesota Tax Court on May 8, 2012.  The tax court dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the appeal was untimely.

            On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented:  (1) whether the tax court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the Turners’ appeal because it was filed 119 days after the Commissioner mailed and e-mailed a copy of the order to the Turners; and (2) whether the Turners’ due process rights were violated by the procedures used by the Commissioner to ensure his orders are received by taxpayers.  (Minnesota Tax Court). 

            State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Charles William Lemert, Appellant – Case No. A12-0050:  Appellant Charles William Lemert was convicted of fifth-degree controlled-substance crime.  Law enforcement officers had discovered methamphetamine in Lemert’s pocket when they frisked him after conducting a traffic stop of the vehicle in which he was a passenger.  The officers had stopped the vehicle as part of an investigation into the driver’s suspected drug-related activities.  The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s order denying Lemert’s motion to suppress the methamphetamine.

            On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether the court of appeals erred when it determined that the search of Lemert was justified by his mere presence in a vehicle with a person who has been suspected of trafficking in large quantities of illegal drugs.  (Nicollet County)

            In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Rebekah Mariya Nett, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 299571 – Case No. A12-1442:  An attorney discipline case that presents the question of what discipline, if any, is appropriate based on the facts of the matter. 

State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. LaDream Hampton Yarbrough,  Appellant – Case No. A12-1872:    During the execution of a search warrant at appellant LaDream Yarbrough’s apartment, police discovered a stolen firearm and a controlled substance.  The State charged appellant with possession of a stolen firearm and first-degree possession of a controlled substance.  Before trial, appellant moved to suppress the drugs and firearm arguing that the warrant application failed to establish a sufficient nexus between his apartment and the firearm and controlled substance.  The district court granted appellant’s motion. 

The court of appeals reversed the district court’s suppression order.  It concluded that the warrant application established a sufficient nexus between petitioner’s apartment and the firearm.  With regard to the controlled substance, the court of appeals concluded that it fell within the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. 

On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented:  (1) whether the judge who issued the search warrant had a substantial basis for concluding that the warrant application established a sufficient nexus between the firearm and appellant’s apartment; and (2) whether the court of appeals improperly considered the plain view exception to the warrant requirement when the exception was not argued by the parties.  (Ramsey County). 

Alice Ann Staab, Respondent vs. Diocese of St. Cloud, Appellant – Case Nos. A12-1575, A12-1972:  Respondent Alice Staab was injured after she fell out of a wheelchair that was being pushed by her husband Richard while they were vising a school that is a part of appellant the Diocese of St. Cloud.  Alice sued the Diocese.  After a trial, the jury found that both the Diocese and Richard were negligent; the jury attributed 50% of the fault to each of them; and the jury awarded Alice a total of $224,200 in damages. 

The district court initially concluded that the Diocese was required to pay the entire damages award because Richard was not a party to the litigation.  The court of appeals reversed.  The supreme court affirmed, concluding that Minn. Stat. § 604.02, subd. 1 (2012), “applies when a jury apportions fault between a defendant and a nonparty tortfeasor and limits the amount the defendant must pay to the share of fault assigned to the defendant by the jury.”  Staab v. Diocese of St. Cloud, 813 N.W.2d 68, 80 (Minn. 2012).  The supreme court remanded to the district court for entry of judgment consistent with the court’s opinion.  Id.

On remand, the district court granted Alice’s motion for reallocation under Minn. Stat. § 604.02, subd. 2 (2012), after finding that Richard’s share of the obligation was uncollectible.  The district court entered a judgment against the Diocese for the entire jury award, plus costs and interest, less amounts already paid.  A divided court of appeals affirmed the district court’s reallocation order.

On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether a severally liable defendant, whose responsibility is limited by Minn. Stat. § 604.02, subd. 1, to his or her equitable share of the award, can be required to pay more than that equitable share pursuant to the reallocation of damages provision in Minn. Stat. § 604.02, subd. 2.  (Stearns County)
 

State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Antoine Rumel Little, Appellant – Case No. A11-2319:  Respondent the State of Minnesota charged appellant Antoine Little with third- and fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct.  Appellant personally waived his right to a jury trial on the charged offenses.  The State later amended the complaint adding a charge of first-degree criminal sexual conduct.  Appellant did not personally renew his waiver of the right to a jury trial after the State filed the amended complaint.  Following a court trial, the district court convicted appellant of first-degree criminal sexual conduct.  The court of appeals affirmed appellant’s conviction.

On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether a renewed jury-trial waiver is required when a complaint is amended to add a more serious charge.  (Olmsted County).