Opinions Archive

1. A sender of an electronic message does not retain a reasonable expectation of privacy in the digital copy of the received message that is stored in the recipient’s separate and independent account or device. 2. Appellant’s Fourth Amendment and state constitutional protections were not triggered when the law enforcement officers searched his accomplices’ Facebook accounts because appellant claims no ownership interest in those accounts and he did not retain a legitimate expectation of privacy in the electronic messages he sent to his accomplices after the messages were received and stored in his accomplices’ Facebook accounts. 3. Appellant’s Fourth Amendment and state constitutional protections were violated by law enforcement’s searches of his two Facebook accounts because the warrant authorizing the searches of his two Facebook accounts lacked any temporal or subject- matter limitations. 4. Although the district court erred when it failed to suppress the evidence collected exclusively during the search of appellant’s two Facebook accounts and when it later admitted that evidence at trial, the errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the jury’s verdict was surely unattributable to the errors. 5. Assuming without deciding that the district court abused its discretion by admitting the contents of constitutionally obtained social media messages pursuant to the immediate episode and Spreigl exceptions to Minnesota Rule of Evidence 404(b), the errors were harmless because they did not significantly affect the verdict. 6. When viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, the corroborative evidence was weighty enough to restore confidence in the truth of the accomplice’s eyewitness testimony that appellant fatally shot the decedent, and the State presented sufficient evidence to support appellant’s conviction. Affirmed.

1. The circumstantial evidence is sufficient to support appellant’s conviction of first-degree premeditated murder. 2. A district court should apply the direct-evidence standard in considering a motion for a judgment of acquittal that is made and decided before the verdict is returned, even when the State’s proof of an element of the offense is entirely circumstantial. Affirmed.

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS Debra Ann Edwards, Appellant, Frederick Ledin, Plaintiff, vs. Nancy Torres, Respondent, Garey Ledin, Respondent. SPECIAL ...

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS In re the Estate of Kenneth L. Penttila, Deceased. SPECIAL TERM ORDER 1 A26-0009 Considered and decided by Frisch, Chief ...

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS Matthew Fredericks, et al., Relators, vs. Brunswick Township Board of Supervisors, Respondent, Jenna Maciej, Respondent. ...

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS Kari Wallgren, Appellant (A26-0200), Plaintiff, Tony Maruna, Plaintiff, Appellant (A26-0212), vs. Marc Richard Richardson, ...

The Castaneda’s arguments on appeal are inadequately briefed. Their briefs contain no citations to the record, caselaw, or statute.

Appellant Brianna Clerk challenges the dismissal of her personal injury suit against respondent Macy’s Maplewood Mall.

Appellant challenges the district court’s grant of a harassment restraining order (HRO), arguing that his conduct was not objectively unreasonable and did not have a substantial adverse effect on respondent that was objectively reasonable. We affirm.

We affirm the district court’s judgment on the pleadings against the appellant because the district court did not err in interpreting that the trust provisions disinheriting appellant through a no-contest clause were triggered by her petition for declaratory relief to (1) determine the no-contest clause’s validity and enforceability and to (2) determine whether moving to remove the trustee would trigger the no-contest provisions of the trust.