EN BANC CALENDAR
Before the Minnesota Supreme Court
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
Summaries prepared by the Supreme Court Commissioner’s Office
State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Tina Deann Leja, Appellant – Case No. C9-02-863: Appellant was found guilty of felony murder and accomplice after the fact and was sentenced to consecutive terms of 210 months for felony murder and 81 months for accomplice after the fact. Both sentences represented an upward durational departure based on concealment of the body. The court of appeals affirmed the sentencing departure. The issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in using the concealment of the body as a basis for an upward departure where there had been no effort to use the location of the body to negotiate or abuse a position of trust. (On appeal from Hennepin County District Court.)
State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Victor Donnell Fields, Appellant – Case No. C0-03-163: Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder and attempted first‑degree murder and was sentenced to consecutive terms on each count. The district court also executed an 84-month term on a burglary conviction that had previously been stayed and ordered this sentence to be served consecutively to the other sentences. The issues presented on appeal are: (1) whether the district court erred in admitting hearsay statements of an unavailable accomplice as statements against penal interest; (2) whether the district court erred in admitting an out-of-court statement by a witness inculpating appellant as an “excited utterance;” (3) whether the district court erred in allowing a police officer to testify to out-of-court statements made by unidentified persons on the grounds that the statements explained the officer’s decision to investigate appellant; (4) whether the cumulative effect of the admission of out-of-court statements identifying appellant as the shooter deprived appellant of a fair trial; and (5) whether the district court erred in assigning two criminal history points to appellant in calculating the presumptive term for the attempted first-degree murder conviction where the sentence was imposed consecutive to the burglary sentence. (On appeal from Hennepin County District Court.)
State of Minnesota, Appellant vs.
Kathryn Lorraine Streiff, Respondent –Case No. C8-02-1857: Respondent was charged with criminal
vehicular operation (substantial bodily harm) and criminal vehicular operation
(leaving the scene of an accident), both felonies, after she rolled the vehicle
she was driving and fled, leaving her injured husband at the scene. At a settlement conference, the district
court granted respondent’s motion to plead guilty to lesser gross misdemeanor
offenses over the state’s objection. On
appeal by the state, the court of appeals affirmed the district court’s
conclusion that a felony conviction would constitute a manifest injustice. The issue on appeal is whether conviction of
respondent on the felony charges would constitute a manifest injustice. (On appeal from Dakota County District
Court.)
Kimberly A. Molloy,
et al., Respondents vs. Diane M. Meier, M.D., et al., Appellants, Reno E.
Backus, et al., Appellants, North Memorial Health Care d/b/a North Memorial
Medical Center, Defendant – Case Nos. C9-02-1821, C2-02-1837:
Respondent sued appellants for negligence based on appellants’ failure
to conduct genetic testing on her child that would have revealed a genetic
condition that, if known to her and her husband, would have affected their
decision to have another child together.
The district court denied appellants’ motion for summary judgment and
certified the issues as important and doubtful to permit appellate review. The court of appeals affirmed. The certified issues before the court are:
(a) Does
a physician who allegedly fails to test for and diagnose a genetic disorder in
an existing child leading to the birth of a subsequent child with that disorder
owe a legal duty to the child’s parents?
(b) When
does the statute of limitations begin to run pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 541.076
(2000) in a parents’ medical negligence claim alleging failure to test for and
diagnose a genetic disorder in an existing child leading to the birth of a
subsequent child with that disorder?
(c) Does
Minn. Stat. § 145.424 (2000) prohibit parents from bringing an action alleging
they would not have conceived the subsequent child described in question (b)?
(d) In
the type of action described, are the parents’ damages, including the cost of
care for the subsequent disabled child, recoverable only through the age of 18,
the child’s lifetime, or the parents’ lifetime?
(On appeal from Hennepin County District
Court.)
In re Petition for
Disciplinary Action against Ernest E. Cutting, a Minnesota Attorney,
Registration No. 20576 – Case No. A03-926:
Attorney discipline matter that presents the issue of what
discipline, if any, is appropriate based upon the facts of the matter.
State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Kou Moua, Appellant – Case No. C6‑03‑359: Appellant was convicted on two counts of first-degree murder. The issues presented on appeal are: (1) whether the district court erred in allowing the state to impeach its own witnesses with out-of-court statements and in refusing to give the jury a limiting instruction on the purpose for which the out-of-court statements could be considered; and (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. (On appeal from Ramsey County District Court.)
NONORAL: Gene W. Carpenter, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A03-490: On appeal from an order denying his petition for postconviction relief from his sentence for first-degree murder, appellant presents the following issue for review: whether the imposition of a life sentence for the present offense consecutive to another life sentence imposed for another murder unfairly exaggerates the criminality of appellant’s conduct. (On appeal from Kanabec County District Court.)
State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Francisco Ornelas, Appellant – Case No. C4-02-1693: Appellant was placed on probation following his conviction for third‑degree criminal sexual conduct. On probation, appellant completed sex-offender and chemical-dependency treatment but he violated probation twice by using alcohol and a third time by possessing a rifle. The district court continued probation for these violations. Petitioner violated probation a fourth time by being in presence of a 16‑year‑old female without an approved supervising person. On this violation, the district court revoked probation and executed appellant’s 48-month sentence. The issues on appeal are: (1) whether the state established by clear and convincing evidence an intentional and inexcusable violation of probation; (2) whether the district court erred in failing to make a specific finding that the probation violation was intentional and inexcusable; and (3) whether the district court erred in revoking appellant’s probation as a sanction for the violation. (On appeal from Cass County District Court.)
Jewish Community Action, et al., Respondents, National Lawyers Guild – Minnesota Chapter, et al., Respondents vs. Commissioner of Public Safety, Appellant – Case Nos. CX-02-1214, C4-02-1290: Respondents commenced a pre‑enforcement challenge to rules adopted by the Department of Public Safety (DPS) regarding additional security measures with respect to documentation and photograph requirements for Minnesota driver’s licenses using the exempt rulemaking procedure in Minn. Stat. § 14.388 (2002). The court of appeals declared the rules invalid because the DPS did not have good cause to engage in exempt rulemaking. The issues on appeal are: (1) whether the arbitrary and capricious standard of review applies in a pre-enforcement challenge to rules adopted under Minn. Stat. § 14.388; (2) whether the DPS met its burden of establishing good cause for exempt rulemaking under Minn. Stat. § 14.388. (On appeal from the Court of Appeals.)
State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. John Arkell, Appellant – Case No. C1‑02‑856: Appellant was found guilty in his individual capacity for violations of the Minnesota Building Code related to grading elevations in a residential construction project performed by a corporation appellant owned and operated. The issues on appeal are: (1) whether the Minnesota Building Code’s criminal enforcement provision is a public welfare/strict liability statute that allows a conviction without proof of intent; and (2) whether the president of a general contractor may be held criminally liable under the responsible-corporate-officer doctrine for a building code violation by independent subcontractors where the president did not have actual knowledge of the violations until after construction was complete and the violations could not be remedied. (On appeal from Mower County District Court.)