Opinions Archive

The good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule does not apply to a warrantless vehicle search based solely on the smell of marijuana that occurred before we issued our opinion in State v. Torgerson, 995 N.W.2d 164 (Minn. 2023), which held that the odor of marijuana alone is insufficient to create probable cause to search a vehicle under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. Reversed and remanded.

The penalty under Minnesota law for obtaining unemployment benefit overpayments through misrepresentation, set forth in Minn. Stat. § 268.18, subd. 2, does not violate the Excessive Fines Clauses of the United States and Minnesota Constitutions. Affirmed.

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS Ellie Fam LLC, Respondent, vs. Felipe Coelho, et al., Appellants (A25-1515), Ellie Fam LLC, Respondent, vs. Jim Baffone, ...

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS In re Matters Involving the Minnesota Tobacco Settlement. SPECIAL TERM ORDER 1 A25-2030 A25-2033 Considered and decided ...

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS Brian M Mortenson, Rice County Attorney, Respondent, vs. 2007 Chevrolet Silverado, Defendant, Paul Scott Seeman, Appellant. ...

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS In the Marriage of: Nada Amin Elkushawi, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Mohamed M.Y. Almuzaini, petitioner, Appellant. ...

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS In re State of Minnesota, Petitioner, State of Minnesota, Petitioner, vs. Erik Lawrence Bader, Respondent. SPECIAL TERM ...

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: A. K., Parent. SPECIAL TERM ORDER 1 A25-1817 Considered and decided ...

Under the corpus delicti statute, Minnesota Statutes section 634.03 (2024), when a district court correctly denies a defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal based on its determination that the trial evidence is sufficient to be presented to the jury because evidence independent of the defendant’s confession reasonably tends to prove that the defendant committed the charged offense, the court acts within its discretion by declining to instruct the jury that a confession of the defendant shall not be sufficient to warrant conviction without evidence that the offense charged has been committed. Affirmed.

A person petitioning a district court for third-party custody of a child under Minn. Stat. §§ 257C.01-.08 (2024) (chapter 257C), is entitled to an evidentiary hearing upon submission of a valid petition and supporting affidavits setting forth a prima facie case for third-party custody of the child as either the child's de facto custodian or as an interested third party. Appellants challenge the dismissal of their petition for third-party custody without an evidentiary hearing, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by determining that their petition and supporting affidavits failed to set forth a prima facie case for third-party custody as either de facto custodians or interested third parties. We remand to the district court for it to exercise its discretion in determining whether appellants set forth a prima facie case in their petition and supporting affidavits for third-party custody as de facto custodians, which would entitle them to an evidentiary hearing on that basis. But we affirm the district court's determination that appellants failed to make a prima facie case for third-party custody as interested third parties and the district court's dismissal of this aspect of the petition without an evidentiary hearing.