Opinions Archive

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Rodney Arlan Smith, Petitioner. SPECIAL TERM ORDER 1 #A25-1651 Considered and decided ...

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS Alexander Nelson, Appellant, vs. Arroyo Insurance Services, Inc., Respondent. SPECIAL TERM ORDER 1 A25-1940 Considered ...

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS In re the Estate of Stephen Singer, Deceased. SPECIAL TERM ORDER 1 A25-1933 Considered and decided by Bjorkman, Presiding ...

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of: Cathy L. Stroud SPECIAL TERM ORDER 1 A25-1959 Considered and decided by Bjorkman, Presiding Judge; ...

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS Mark LaVigne, Appellant, vs. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Respondent. SPECIAL TERM ORDER 1 A25-1837 Considered ...

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS Stepping Stones Early Learning Center, Inc., et al., Appellants, vs. Stepping Stones ELC, Inc., et al., Respondents, ...

1. Statutory immunity under Minnesota Statutes section 260E.34(a)(1) (2024), extends to a person who makes a mandated report under chapter 260E (2024), in good faith, even if the report is not made immediately. 2. Statutory immunity under Minnesota Statutes section 260E.34(a)(1) extends to a person who makes a voluntary report under chapter 260E, in good faith, regardless of whether the person is also a mandatory reporter. 3. Good faith, for the purpose of statutory immunity under section 260E.34(a)(1), is established if the report is made without an ulterior motive, without malice, and for a proper purpose. Affirmed.

Appellant challenges his convictions for first-degree drug possession, fleeing a police officer in a motor vehicle, and fleeing a police officer by means other than a motor vehicle, arguing that the district court erred in denying his continuance request and violated his right to counsel. Because we discern no error by the district court, we affirm.

We affirm the district court's evidentiary decision to admit a letter purportedly sent by appellant Anthony James Cox because it was properly authenticated under Minnesota Rule of Evidence 901. We also conclude that Cox's due-process rights were not violated by the destruction of non-material video footage, and that the district court did not plainly err by admitting surveillance footage offered by the state at trial.

Appellant Jamaal Terrance Tanna appeals from a conviction for controlled- substance crime in the first degree—possession, in violation of Minnesota Statutes section 152.021, subdivision 2(a)(1) (Supp. 2023). He argues that (1) his conviction must be reversed because the state did not offer sufficient evidence to prove the weight element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, (2) he is entitled to a new trial because the district court erroneously instructed the jury, and (3) he is entitled to a new trial because the district court abused its discretion in admitting a search warrant into evidence. We affirm.