Opinions Archive

The district court did not plainly err in admitting a transcript of an adverse witness’s prior testimony at defendant’s criminal trial without the defendant’s personal waiver of his Sixth Amendment confrontation right. Affirmed.

We reverse appellant David Anthony Tuinder's conviction for violation of an order for protection (OFP) because, even though his communications with the mother of his son were restricted to "parenting-time issues only" through the Our Family Wizard platform, his messaging about the best method of delivering birthday and Christmas presents to his son were not a prohibited contact.

Appellant challenges his indeterminate civil commitment to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) as a sexually dangerous person (SDP), arguing that the district court erred by determining that (1) he meets the criteria for commitment as an SDP and (2) a less-restrictive treatment program is not available or appropriate. We affirm.

Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion when dissolving the parties' marriage by (1) inequitably dividing marital assets and debt; (2) denying her transitional maintenance and need-based attorney fees; and (3) limiting discovery. We affirm.

In this appeal from the district court's default judgment in favor of respondents, appellant contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to vacate the judgment and reopen the case, arguing that the district court erroneously determined that he failed to establish all of the applicable factors. We affirm.

We affirm the district court's revocation of the appellant's stay of adjudication because the appellant did not have a liberty interest that prevented the district court from revoking the stay of adjudication, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking the stay of adjudication.

We affirm appellant's convictions for third-degree assault and felony domestic assault, concluding that any prosecutorial misconduct was harmless and did not affect the jury verdict.

Appellant challenges the dismissal of her claims under Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(e), arguing that the district court erred in dismissing her (A) breach-of- contract claim and (B) constitutional challenge to Minnesota's anti-stacking statute. We affirm.

Appellant father challenges the district court's parenting-time, child-support, and attorney-fee determinations in the underlying marital-dissolution proceeding. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for additional findings.

In this appeal from the final judgment of conviction for first-degree criminal sexual conduct, appellant argues that his conviction must be reversed for insufficient evidence. Alternatively, appellant challenges his aggravated sentence. We affirm.