OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT
FILED Wednesday, April 30, 2025
NOTICE - MEDIA RELEASE TIME IS 10:00 A.M.
A23-0158 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Eloisa Rubi Plancarte, Appellant.
Court of Appeals.
1. To “lewdly” expose oneself in violation of Minnesota Statutes section 617.23, subdivision 1(1) (2024), a person must engage in conduct of a sexual nature.
2. The State did not present evidence sufficient to prove that the appellant “lewdly” exposed her “body, or the private parts thereof” under section 617.23, subdivision 1(1), because the record does not show that the appellant engaged in conduct of a sexual nature.
Reversed. Justice Karl C. Procaccini.
Concurring, Justice Sarah E. Hennesy, Justice Karl C. Procaccini.
Took no part, Justice Theodora K. Gaïtas.
A21-0070 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Larry Joe Foster, Appellant.
A21-0583 Court of Appeals.
1. Appellant did not properly preserve the question of whether a defendant, who has satisfied the required test to present an alternative perpetrator defense, is entitled to call the alternative perpetrator to appear before the jury for a nontestimonial purpose.
2. When a defendant has satisfied the required test to present an alternative perpetrator defense, a district court has discretion under the ordinary rules of evidence to allow the defendant to call the alternative perpetrator as a trial witness, even when it is known that the alternative perpetrator will invoke their right against self-incrimination in the presence of the jury.
3. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied appellant’s request to call an alternative perpetrator to the witness stand based on needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
Affirmed. Justice Karl C. Procaccini.
Concurring, Justice Theodora K. Gaïtas, Chief Justice Natalie E. Hudson.
A24-0454 Rodney Dean Bjornson, Relator, vs. McNeilus Companies, Inc. and Travelers Indemnity Company of America and Property & Casualty
Insurance Company of Hartford with claims administered by Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., Respondents.
Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals.
The Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals must assess whether there is evidence in the record that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a compensation judge's determination that an employee's attorney recovered an ascertainable dollar amount of medical benefits under Minn. Stat. § 176.081, subd. 1(a) (2024).
Reversed and remanded. Justice Sarah E. Hennesy.
A24-0930 Leroy Roderick Paul, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent.
Hennepin County.
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it summarily denied appellant’s petition for postconviction relief because, even accepting the evidence presented in support of the petition as true, appellant was conclusively entitled to no relief.
Affirmed. Justice Sarah E. Hennesy.
Took no part, Justice Theodora K. Gaïtas.
ORDERS
A24-0056 Ashcel Companies, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, Appellant, vs. County of Dodge, Respondent.
Dismissed. Chief Justice Natalie E. Hudson.
A24-1527 In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Zaylore S. Stout, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0392929.
Suspended. Justice Gordon L. Moore, III.
A24-1106 In re Petition for Reinstatement of Daniel Miller, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0125544.
Reinstated. Justice Gordon L. Moore, III.
A24-0859 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Diamond Lee Jamal Griffin, Appellant.
Jurisdiction Accepted. Per Curiam.