Opinions Archive

1. The postconviction court did not abuse its discretion in summarily denying appellant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel without holding an evidentiary hearing because the petition was filed more than 2 years after his direct appeal and the facts alleged in the postconviction petition, if proven at an evidentiary hearing, would not have satisfied any exception to the 2-year statute of limitations. 2. Even assuming that appellant’s petition included a motion for testing under Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 1a (2018), the postconviction court’s failure to rule on the motion does not require a remand because the petition fails to allege facts that would satisfy the requirements of the statute. Affirmed. Considered and decided by the court without oral argument.

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A18-1330 Original Jurisdiction Per Curiam In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Lori J. Sklar, a Minnesota Attorney, ...

1. Because the law at the time of respondent’s appeal did not clearly require that the district court sua sponte instruct the jurors on the proper use of relationship evidence admitted under Minn. Stat. § 634.20 (1996), the district court did not commit an error that was plain in failing to give a limiting instruction. 2. If a district court admits relationship evidence under Minn. Stat. § 634.20 (2018), over a defendant’s objection that the evidence is not admissible under that statute, the court must sua sponte instruct the jurors on the proper use of such evidence, unless the defendant objects to such action by the court. Reversed.

1. The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the recorded statement of an eyewitness under Minnesota Rule of Evidence 807, even after the witness partially recanted the statement at trial, because the statement possessed circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, was offered as evidence of a material fact, was more probative on proving premeditation than any other evidence reasonably procurable, and its admission served the interests of justice. 2. The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the evidence of the contents of a backpack linking appellant to items that went missing along with the murder weapon because that evidence was relevant and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. 3. The district court erred by entering a conviction for both first-degree murder and second-degree murder because second-degree intentional murder is a lesser-included offense of first-degree premediated murder. 4. None of appellant’s pro se claims have merit. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

1. The disclaimer requirement in Minn. Stat. § 211B.04 (2018) is a constitutionally permissible restraint on the speech of political candidates and their campaigns. 2. When a person subject to the disclaimer requirement in Minn. Stat. § 211B.04 places nonconforming campaign materials on continuous public display, or distributes nonconforming campaign materials for continuous public display, the person commits a continuing violation for as long as the materials are on display.

Appellant Jared Phillip Renner filed this appeal from a final judgment of conviction and sentence for first-degree burglary following a guilty plea. Renner argues that he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea because it was inaccurate. Because the record does not support his argument, we affirm.

If a tribal police officer suspects a person who is not an Indian of violating a Minnesota criminal statute on an Indian reservation, and if the victim is not an Indian or there is no victim, the tribal police officer lawfully may detain the person and deliver him or her to state law-enforcement authorities for further investigation and prosecution.

On appeal from a judgment of conviction for possessing pornographic works involving minors, appellant argues that the district court erred in denying his motions for downward durational and dispositional departures from the presumptive sentence under the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm.

An offender may receive multiple sentences for violating the no-contact provisions of an order for protection (OFP) with respect to multiple persons protected by the provisions, even if the violations arose out of a single behavioral incident, because each person protected by the no-contact provisions of an OFP is a victim of the crime of violating those provisions.

Relator Lisa Sarazin appeals the determination of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she quit her job without good reason caused by her employer, respondent Ruth Strickers Fitness Unlimited Inc. (Ruth Strickers). We affirm.