EN BANC CALENDAR
Before the Minnesota Supreme Court
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
Summaries
prepared by the Supreme Court Commissioner’s Office
Trevor Anthony Brown, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A03-1588: On appeal from an order denying his petition for postconviction relief from his conviction for aiding and abetting first-degree murder, appellant Trevor Brown presents the following issues for review: (1) whether Brown was denied a fair trial by the district court’s failure to instruct the jury on the need for corroboration of accomplice testimony; (2) whether the cumulative effect of alleged trial errors denied Brown a fair trial; and (3) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. (On appeal from Dakota County District Court.)
Travertine Corporation, Appellant vs. Lexington-Silverwood, a Minnesota Limited Partnership, Respondent – Case No. A03-210: Appellant Travertine Corporation and James Lennon were parties to a management agreement containing an arbitration clause. Lennon subsequently agreed to transfer any compensation under the agreement to respondent Lexington-Silverwood to satisfy a judgment. After Travertine terminated the agreement, Lexington-Silverwood demanded arbitration under the terms of the agreement to recover compensation allegedly owed to Lennon, and Travertine filed suit to stay arbitration. The district court stayed arbitration but the court of appeals reversed. The issues on appeal are: (1) whether an assignee of compensation allegedly due under a contract with an arbitration clause may compel arbitration despite being a non-signatory to the contract; and (2) whether a non-assignment clause precludes assignment of a right of payment under a contract where the contract does not expressly limit the power of assignment or declare that assignments are void. (On appeal from Hennepin County District Court.)
Jeff Wiegand, on behalf of
himself and all persons similarly situated, Appellant vs. Walser Automotive
Group, Inc., et al., Respondents – Case No. A03‑250: Appellant Jeff Wiegand filed
a consumer class action alleging that respondent Walser Automotive Group made
oral misrepresentations regarding the financing of purchased vehicles that
contradicted the terms of the written financing agreement signed by purchasers. The district court granted Walser’s motion
to dismiss for failure to state a claim and a divided panel of court of appeals
affirmed. The issues on appeal
are: (1) whether a causal nexus between
an oral misrepresentation and a consumer’s injury can be found to exist where a
written contract contradicts the content of an oral misrepresentation; and (2)
whether the common law standard of justifiable reliance upon fraudulent
misrepresentations applies to claims under the Consumer Fraud Act. (On appeal from Hennepin County District
Court.)
State of
Minnesota, Respondent vs. Sergio Sanchez-Diaz, Appellant – Case No. A03-1342: On appeal from his convictions
for first-degree domestic abuse murder and second-degree intentional murder of
an unborn child, appellant Sergio Sanchez-Diaz presents the following issues
for review: (1) whether the district
court’s jury instruction on the definition of past pattern of domestic abuse
was plain error; (2) whether the district court abused its discretion in
admitting Sanchez-Diaz’s out-of-court statements; (3) whether the evidence was
sufficient to support a finding that Sanchez-Diaz engaged in a past pattern of
domestic abuse; and (4) whether the district court abused its discretion in
sentencing Sanchez-Diaz to a permissive consecutive sentence for intentional
murder of an unborn child. (On Appeal
from McLeod County District Court.)
Owners Insurance Company, Appellant vs. Ione Forstrom, et al., Defendants, Mark Anthony Heath, et al., Respondents, Pablo Ojeda-Napoles, et al., Respondents, Heather Tuckee, Respondent, Myron Weege, Jr., Respondent – Case No. C8-03-296: Respondent Mark Heath was involved in a two-car automobile accident with respondents Pablo and Marie Ojeda-Napoles while Heath was driving a vehicle owned by a third party. At the time of the accident, Heath was living with his grandmother, Ione Forstrom, who had an automobile insurance policy with appellant Owners Insurance Company. Heath was also in the process of purchasing from his parents an automobile that was not operable. The Ojeda-Napoles put Owners on notice that they intended to pursue excess liability coverage under Forstrom’s policy with Owners that covered others living with Forstrom who did own their own vehicle. Owners commenced suit seeking a declaration that the policy did not provide excess liability coverage to Heath for the Ojeda-Napoles’ claims. The district court agreed with the Ojeda-Napoles that Heath did not own a motor vehicle on the date of the accident because he was not the registered owner of the vehicle he was purchasing from his parents and granted the Ojeda-Napoles summary judgment. The court of appeals affirmed. The issues on appeal are: (1) whether extrinsic evidence may be used to prove the identity of the owner of motor vehicle for purposes of establishing whether coverage exists for a driver; and (2) whether Heath owned a motor vehicle under the No-Fault Act and therefore was not a covered insured under the policy issued by Owners to Forstrom. (On appeal from Fillmore County District Court.)
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Matthew Philip Anderson, Appellant – Case No. A03-290: Appellant Matthew Anderson used the center lane of a three-lane, one-way street to drive past a stopped squad car with emergency lights activated that was in the right lane. The officer stopped appellant based on the mistaken belief that under Minn. Stat. § 169.18, subd. 11, which requires vehicles to move to “a lane away” from an emergency vehicle stopped on or next to a street with two or more lanes in the same direction, Anderson was required to be in the far left lane. As a result of the stop, Anderson was arrested and charged with driving while impaired. The district court granted Anderson’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the stop on the ground that the officer did not have an objective legal basis for suspecting him of operating a motor vehicle in violation of Minn. Stat. § 169.18, subd. 11. On a pretrial appeal by the state, the court of appeals reversed, holding that the investigatory stop was valid based on the officer’s objectively reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute that had not been interpreted by any appellate court. The issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in granting the motion to suppress based on its finding that the officer did not have an objective legal basis for the stop. (On appeal from Hennepin County District Court.)
State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Salem Mathew Bernhardt, Appellant – Case Nos. C8-02-742, A03-1458: On appeal from an order denying his motion for postconviction relief from his conviction for first-degree murder, appellant Salem Bernhardt presents the following issues for review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict; (2) whether the district court denied Bernhardt’s right to confrontation by admitting hearsay statements; (3) whether Bernhardt was prejudiced by defense counsel’s failure to object to hearsay statements implicating Bernhardt made by Bernhardt’s co-defendants; and (4) whether the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct warranting a new trial. (On appeal from McLeod County District Court.)
State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. James (NMN) Foreman, Appellant – Case No. C5-03-160: Appellant James Foreman was charged with second-degree assault of his wife. Before trial, the complainant recanted her allegations and then recanted her recantation. At trial, the state was permitted to introduce evidence regarding Foreman’s relationship with his wife and expert testimony on domestic abuse. Following his conviction, Foreman appealed and the court of appeals affirmed. The issues on appeal are: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict where the complainant recanted her allegations and the relationship evidence and expert testimony allegedly did not provide corroboration for assault; and (2) whether the district court erred in imposing a durational departure at sentencing without providing grounds for departure. (On appeal from Hennepin County District Court.)
Tuesday, May 11, 2004, 9:00 a.m., Courtroom 300,
Minnesota Judicial Center
State of Minnesota, Respondent
vs. Jason Lee Bolstad, Appellant – Case No. A03-832: On appeal from his conviction for
first-degree murder, appellant Jason Bolstad presents the following issues for
review: (1) whether the evidence was
sufficient to support the verdict; (2) whether the district court abused its
discretion in denying Bolstad’s request to re-call a witness; and (3) whether
the prosecutor engaged in prejudicial misconduct warranting a new trial. (On appeal from Kanabec County District
Court.)
State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Houa V. Lee, Appellant – Case No.
C8‑02‑2278: Appellant
Houa Lee was charged with receiving stolen property, receiving stolen property
for the benefit of a gang, fifth-degree controlled substance crime, and
possession of a firearm with an altered serial number after a fellow gang
member told police that he and others had stolen guns at Lee’s direction and
several firearms, including a rifle with the serial number scratched off, and a
bag of marijuana were found in Lee’s home.
Lee was convicted on all counts and the court of appeals affirmed the
convictions. The issues on appeal
are: (1) whether the informant was an
accomplice whose testimony needed to be corroborated; and (2) whether the
prosecutor engaged in prejudicial misconduct warranting a new trial. (On appeal from Washington County District
Court.)