EN BANC CALENDAR

Before the Minnesota Supreme Court

December 2004

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES

Summaries prepared by the Supreme Court Commissioner’s Office

 

Monday, November 29, 2004, 9:00 a.m., Supreme Court Courtroom, State Capitol

 

            Hutchinson Technology, Inc., Relator vs. Commissioner of Revenue, Respondent – Case Nos. A04-1245, A04-1247:  The Tax Court denied relator Hutchinson Technology, Inc.’s two claims for refunds of corporate franchise tax.  The issues on appeal are:  (1) whether relator’s subsidiary, HTI Export, Ltd., qualified as a foreign operating corporation under Minnesota law; and (2) whether relator “accrued” genuine “fees” from HTI Export for state tax purposes where relator allocated a portion of its “indirect costs” to HTI Export for federal tax purposes.  (On appeal from the Tax Court.)

 

            State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Jason Alexander MacLennan, Appellant – Case No. A03-2048:  On appeal from his conviction for first-degree murder, appellant Jason MacLennan presents the following issues for review:  (1) whether the district court denied MacLennan the right to present a complete defense by excluding expert testimony on battered child syndrome and other evidence of abuse offered in support of MacLennan’s claim of self-defense; and (2) whether the prosecutor engaged in misconduct warranting a new trial.  (On appeal from Stearns County District Court.)

 

Tuesday, November 30, 2004, 9:00 a.m., Supreme Court Courtroom, State Capitol

 

            State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Robert Allen Shattuck, Appellant – Case No. C6-03-362:  Appellant Robert Shattuck was sentenced to 161 months in prison for kidnapping and to a concurrent 360-month term for first-degree criminal sexual conduct, an upward durational departure based on findings by the district court that aggravating factors warranting a departure were present.  The issue on appeal is whether, based on Blakely v. Washington, 125 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), the sentence violates Shattuck’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial because the aggravating factors were found by the district court and not by a jury.  (On appeal from Hennepin County District Court.)

 

            Dead Lake Association, Inc., Appellant vs. Otter Tail County, Minnesota, Respondent, R. Murray Partnership, LLP, Respondent – Case No. A03-750:  Appellant Dead Lake Association, Inc., appealed a decision of the Otter Tail County Board of Commissioners (Board) granting respondent R. Murray Partnership, LLP, a conditional use permit (CUP) for a cluster development on Dead Lake, which is designated a natural environmental lake.  The court of appeals held that Otter Tail County’s shoreland management ordinance complies with state regulations regarding shoreland zoning and that the Board had the authority to grant the CUP.  But the court of appeals reversed the Board’s decision to grant the CUP on the ground the Board failed to make adequate findings in support of its decision.  The issue on appeal is whether the CUP violates state regulations regarding cluster development on natural environmental lakes.  (On appeal from the Otter Tail County Board of Commissioners.)

 

Monday, December 6, 2004, 9:00 a.m., Courtroom 300, Minnesota Judicial Center

 

            Lena M. Hyatt, Appellant vs. Anoka Police Department, et al., Respondents – Case No. A03-1707:  Appellant Lena Hyatt sued respondents Anoka Police Department and City of Anoka under the “dog bite” statute, Minn. Stat. § 347.22 (2002), after a police dog bit her during the arrest of her husband.  The district court held that the statute imposed strict liability on the City of Anoka as the owner of the dog.  The court of appeals reversed, holding that Minn. Stat. § 347.22 (2002) does not apply to police dogs.  The issue on appeal is whether Minn. Stat. § 347.22 (2002) applies to police dogs. (On appeal from Anoka County District Court.)

 

            State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Pierre Leake, Appellant – Case No. A04‑57:  On appeal from his conviction for first-degree murder, appellant Pierre Leake presents the following issues for review:  (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict; and (2) whether, based on Blakely v. Washington, 125 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), the sentence of life in prison with no possibility of release violates the federal constitution because it was based on a finding by the district court rather than the jury that the offense qualified as a heinous offense under Minn. Stat. § 609.106 (2004).  (On appeal from Hennepin County District Court.)

  

Tuesday, December 7, 2004, 9:00 a.m. Courtroom 300, Minnesota Judicial Center

 

            Richard James Carrillo, Appellant vs. Joan Fabian, Commissioner of Corrections, Respondent – Case No. A03-1663:  Following a finding by a hearing officer employed by the Commissioner of Corrections that appellant Richard Carrillo had committed a disciplinary infraction, Carrillo’s release date was extended by seven days.  Carrillo filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the extension in district court.  The district court denied the petition and the court of appeals affirmed.  The issues on appeal are:  (1) whether an inmate has a constitutional right to procedural due process before the Commissioner of Corrections extends his incarceration time; and (2) whether the “some evidence” standard used by the Commissioner of Corrections to determine whether a disciplinary infraction has occurred is sufficient to satisfy due process.  (On appeal from Washington County District Court.)

 

            State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Mohammed Gazizamil Al-Naseer, Appellant – Case No. A03-634:  Appellant Mohammed Al-Nasser was charged with two counts of criminal vehicular homicide after he struck and killed a motorist who was changing a tire on the side of the road, and then left the scene.  The district court admitted Al‑Naseer’s statements to the police and denied a defense request to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of careless driving.  Al-Naseer was convicted on both charges.  On appeal, the court of appeals reversed appellant’s conviction for criminal vehicular homicide based on leaving the scene of an accident, but affirmed the conviction based on gross negligence.  The court of appeals also held that the district court erred in admitting Al‑Naseer’s statements to the police but that the admission was harmless error and that the district court did not err in refusing to submit the lesser-included offense to the jury.  The issues on appeal are:  (1) whether the admission of Al-Naseer’s statements to the police was harmless error; and (2) whether the district court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of careless driving.  (On appeal from Clay County District Court.)

 

Wednesday, December 8, 2004, 9:00 a.m., Courtroom 300, Minnesota Judicial Center

 

            State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Kevin Ross Barrett, Appellant – Case No. A04-29:  The State filed a pretrial appeal of a district court order granting appellant Kevin Barrett’s motion to suppress evidence.  The State did not serve its notice of appeal on the Office of the State Public Defender, and Barrett was not represented on appeal and did not otherwise participate in the appeal pro se.  The court of appeals reversed the district court’s order.  Barrett then filed a motion in the court of appeals seeking to vacate the decision, which the court of appeals denied.  The issues on appeal are:  (1) whether failure to serve the State Public Defender with the notice of a pretrial appeal is a jurisdictional defect that requires dismissal of the appeal; (2) whether the prosecutor’s failure to question Barrett’s lack of counsel constituted a failure to act as a minister of justice, entitling Barrett to vacation of the court of appeals’ decision; and (3) whether the court of appeals’ decision should be reversed because Barrett was denied appellate representation.  (On appeal from Isanti County District Court.)

 

            NONORAL:  Mark Carney, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A04-513:  Appellant Mark Carney filed a petition seeking postconviction relief from his conviction for first-degree murder on the ground he received ineffective assistance of counsel based on defense counsel’s failure to investigate his mental status at the time of the offense and failure to call medical experts in support of his claim that he acted in the heat of passion.  The district court denied the petition.  The issues on appeal are: (1) whether Carney was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claim; and (2) whether Carney’s postconviction claims are procedurally barred.  (On appeal from Clay County District Court.)