Opinions Archive

A statement in a report to a state licensing board that initiates an investigation constitutes a “communication in a . . . governmental proceeding” within the meaning of the Minnesota Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA), Minnesota Statutes section 554.08(b)(1) (2024), such that claims based on the statement may be subject to a special motion for expedited relief under UPEPA. Affirmed.

A Dakota County jury convicted Albert Flores of second-degree criminal sexual conduct after hearing witness testimony from the minor victim about Flores's abuse. Flores appeals his conviction, raising two arguments. He argues first that the district court admitted, and the jury heard, statements from his interview with a child-protection investigator that are inadmissible under Miranda. He argues second that the district court improperly allowed the criminal complaint to be amended before jury deliberation. Because the admission of his interview statements was prohibited by Miranda and substantially affected the verdict, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

Appellant challenges his conviction of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove his guilt. Alternatively, appellant argues that he is entitled to a new trial because the district court committed prejudicial error by admitting statements the complainant made during a forensic interview that were not consistent with the complainant's trial testimony. Finally, appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a downward dispositional departure. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support appellant's conviction, but because the district court erred in admitting the inconsistent statements from the forensic interview, and appellant has met his burden to show that he was prejudiced by this error, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

Appellant seeks reversal of his convictions for first-degree sale of a controlled substance and fifth-degree possession of a controlled substance. He argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized following a warrantless arrest and a subsequent warrantless search of his person. Appellant also contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney did not challenge the warrantless search of his car. Because we conclude that officers had probable cause to arrest appellant and conduct a search of his person incident to that arrest, and that appellant has not established an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, we affirm.

Relator Shelley Schlichting, in her position as manager, failed to track income and expenses and then failed to pay past-due sales-tax bills. She was fired by respondent American Legion. After a hearing, an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) determined that Schlichting was discharged for employment misconduct, and the decision was affirmed after reconsideration. Because Schlichting received a fair hearing, and because substantial evidence supports the ULJ's determination that Schlichting was discharged for employment misconduct, we affirm.

Appellant Francis Gregory Halling challenges his conviction of two counts of falsely reporting police misconduct, arguing that the evidence was insufficient because he did not know the reported police misconduct was false. Because the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, we affirm.

Appellant Troy Kenneth Scheffler challenges the district court's grant of respondents' motion to dismiss appellant's defamation and conspiracy suit under Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(e) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Appellant also claims that the district court demonstrated bias and erroneously held him to a higher standard as a self-represented litigant. We discern no judicial misconduct or bias. Because, however, the pleading of the alleged defamatory statements is sufficient to survive the motion to dismiss, we reverse and remand.

A Martin County jury found Lowell Victor Abelson guilty of second-degree assault based on evidence that he injured a woman by firing a handgun. We conclude that the evidence is sufficient to prove that Abelson had the mens rea required for the offense of assault by the intentional infliction of bodily harm (also known as assault-harm). We also conclude that the prosecutor did not misstate the law during closing argument and, thus, did not engage in prosecutorial misconduct. Therefore, we affirm.

A 52-year-old lieutenant passed away while on a medical leave of absence from his employment with the sheriff's office. Relator, the lieutenant's sister, applied to respondent agency for the death benefit established for public safety officers who are "killed in the line of duty," as provided in Minn. Stat. § 299A.44 (2024). After respondent denied the application, relator petitioned for a writ of certiorari, challenging a summary disposition by the administrative-law judge (ALJ) in favor of respondent. Relator argues that the lieutenant was killed in the line of duty when he died by drowning and heart attack while on medical leave from his duties. Because he was not killed in the line of duty as provided in the heart-attack provision set out in Minn. Stat. § 299A.41, subd. 3 (2024), we affirm.

Appellant challenges the requirement that he register as a predatory offender based on a kidnapping charge that he was acquitted of by a jury, arguing that the district court erred by determining that the acquitted charges and convicted charge arose out of the same circumstances or, in the alternative, that the predatory-offender registration requirement based on acquitted conduct is unconstitutional. Additionally, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his misdemeanor domestic assault conviction. We affirm.