OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT

FILED Wednesday, October 9, 2024

NOTICE - MEDIA RELEASE TIME IS 10:00 A.M.

A22-1424   State of Minnesota, Appellant, vs. Julian Daniel Valdez, Respondent.
                    Court of Appeals.
          1. To justifiably use reasonable force in defense of another under Minnesota Statutes section 609.06, subdivision 1(3) (2022), a defendant must subjectively believe that the person in peril has no reasonable possibility of safe retreat, and that belief must be objectively reasonable based on the information available to the defendant at the time that they use force to defend the person in peril. The district court abused its discretion by instructing the jury that an element of respondent’s defense-of-others claim was that respondent had a duty to retreat and avoid the danger if reasonably possible.
          2. The court of appeals correctly concluded that the district court’s erroneous instruction that respondent had a duty to retreat before acting in defense of his stepbrother was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and requires a new trial.
          Affirmed. Justice Karl C. Procaccini.
          Took no part, Justice Theodora K. Gaïtas.

Opinion SetsAs of June 1, 2023, the Supreme Court no longer provides opinion sets in Word Document format and Rich Text Format. Opinions are available in PDF format under the Opinions tab on this site.

Opinion Set in a Zipped PDF Format

1. Click the above link.
2. Save the unzipped file to your computer.
3. Choose the "Open" option on the Download Complete screen.
4. Extract the files to a location of your choice.
5. Open the extracted file.

ORDERS ON PETITIONS FOR FURTHER REVIEW

FILED Wednesday, September 25, 2024

(Petitioner indicated in Italic Type)

 
Granted
 
1.         Carlos Heard vs. State of Minnesota – A23-1511
 
Issue Granted: Did this court’s decisions in State v. Noor, 964 N.W.2d 424 (Minn. 2021), and State v. Coleman, 957 N.W.2d 72 (Minn. 2021)—together and separately—announce new rules for the purposes of both retroactivity and the new-interpretation-of-state-law exception to the two-year time bar in the postconviction statute?
 
 
2.         State of Minnesota vs. Jennifer Lynn Nagle – A23-0927
 
Issue Granted: When police did not corroborate a confidential reliable informant’s tip to any extent, is the lack of corroboration irrelevant to the probable-cause analysis, or is the lack of corroboration instead part of the totality of the circumstances relevant to whether probable cause is established?
 
3.         State of Minnesota vs. Samuel Alejondro Torrez – A23-0902
 
Issue Granted: At a trial for refusal to submit to chemical testifying pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 2(2) (2022), must the State prove beyond a reasonable doubt that law enforcement had probable cause to believe the defendant was driving while impaired if there was a valid search warrant for a blood or urine test supported by probable cause?
 
 
Granted/Stayed
 
4.      State of Minnesota vs. Antonio Dirrell Hugh – A23-0102
 
Issue: Under circumstantial-evidence review, must evidence be included in the circumstances proved even though an intermediate inference drawn from the evidence supports an ultimate conclusion different than the one the jury reached?
 
Stayed Pending Final Disposition in State v. Firkus, A23-0973.
 
 
Grant/Vacate/Remand to Reinstate
 
5.         Ronald A. Hagle vs. Gossett Properties LLC, et al., John Doe, et al. – A24-0526
 
Issues:  (1) Does this case directly meet all the criteria for further review found in Minn. Rule of Appellate Procedure 117, Subd. 2 (a), (c) (d)(l), d)(2) and (d)(3) and indirectly Subd. 2 (b)?  (2) Was Respondents’ Attorney’s address on their January 19, 2024 Memorandum dated December 19, 2024, notice of a change of address and if it was, did the December 19, 2024 date as part of the notice mean the new address did not take effect until December 19, 2024?  (3) Did Respondents’ acceptance of service of Appellant’s January 19, 2024 Memorandum at the seventh street address without notifying Appellant it was the wrong address, mean Appellant mailing the Notice of Appeal to that address satisfied the requirement of Rule 5.02 of mailing to the Attorney’s “last known address”?  (4) Because Respondents relied upon mail forwarding by the United States Postal Service, instead of notifying Appellant of their change of address, did service at 90 South 7th Street satisfy the requirement of Rule 5.02 of the Minn R. Civ. P. of mailing to the Attorney’s “last known address”?  (5) Did the fact Respondents used a new address on their January 19, 2024 Memorandum but dated the new address December 19, 2024, without more, provide adequate notice under the Due Process clauses of the U.S. and Minnesota Constitutions to take away Appellant’s right to have his meritorious appeal heard?  (6) Should a meritorious appeal involving a $475,000 property that clearly belongs to Appellant be taken away from him on such dubious grounds?
 
The dismissal order of the court of appeals was vacated and the case remanded to the court of appeals for reinstatement of the appeal.
 
Denied
 
6.            Akpene Yaa Asempa vs. State of Minnesota – A23-1184
7.            Doris A. Seward vs. Taylor Florin-Clemants, John Doe, et al. – A23-1445
8.            In re the Matter of: Zoraba Ross vs. Angel Raeleen Smith – A23-1263
9.            In re the Welfare of A.N.C., Child – A24-0754
10.          In re the Welfare of A.N.C., Child – A24-0785
11.          In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Nathaniel Lee Betzler – A24-0102
12.          In the Matter of the Welfare of: M.D.T., Child – A23-1098
13.          Lannon Lavar Burdunice vs. Guy Bosch – A23-1683
14.          Mohamed Shaaban Sultan vs. City of St. Paul – A23-1661
15.          Sandra Weise vs. Alan M. Powell – A23-1108
16.          State of Minnesota vs. Anthony Lee Prellwitz – A23-0971
17.          State of Minnesota vs. Brady James Robinson – A23-1322
18.          State of Minnesota vs. Carl Douglas Smith – A23-1085
19.          State of Minnesota vs. Charles Todd Bragg – A24-0052
20.          State of Minnesota vs. Crystal Ann Olson – A23-1129
21.          State of Minnesota vs. Damarcus Deontay Holloway – A23-1217
22.          State of Minnesota vs. Gilberto Dominguez-Solis – A23-0722
23.          State of Minnesota vs. Jerome Anthony Woodland – A22-1748
24.          State of Minnesota vs. Keonta Germaine Wickliffe – A23-0813
25.          State of Minnesota vs. Phillip Charles Jones – A23-0950
26.          State of Minnesota vs. Ronnie Price – A23-0872
27.          State of Minnesota vs. Samantha Dana Schroeder – A23-1695
28.          State of Minnesota vs. Thomas Lee Murray – A23-1226
29.          State of Minnesota vs. William Arthur Kalligher – A23-1353
30.          Travis Clay Andersen vs. State of Minnesota – A23-1835
 
 
Denied – Filed September 24, 2024
 
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: L.A.B. and A.D.C.V., Jr., Parents – A24-0465