Opinions Archive

1. In determining whether to order forfeiture of a bail bond, the trial court must exercise its discretion and consider, among other factors, the proportionality of any prejudice to the state compared to the amount of the bail bond to be forfeited. 2. When the trial court’s decision to forfeit a bond is against logic and facts on the record, a reviewing court will find an abuse of discretion. Reversed and remanded.

A patient who has been civilly committed as mentally ill under Minnesota Statutes chapter 253B, is entitled to the assistance of the patient’s court-appointed counsel in extraordinary writ proceedings to enforce the patient’s right to priority admission to a state-operated treatment program under section 253B.10, subdivision 1(b), and the county of financial responsibility must pay court-appointed counsel a reasonable sum for counsel’s work in connection with those proceedings. Reversed.

Substitute service on a foreign insurance company is permitted under Minnesota Statutes section 45.028, subdivision 1(c) (2024), when the foreign insurance company appoints the Minnesota Commissioner of Commerce for service of process pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 60A.19, subdivision 3, or section 60A.21, subdivision 2(1) (2024). It is not necessary to specifically plead section 45.028, subdivision 1(c), in the complaint.

In this direct appeal from a judgment of conviction for two counts of controlled- substance possession, appellant Matthew Sam Mitchell argues that the district court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence of the offense that was discovered after the officer expanded the scope of a traffic stop to investigate other criminal activity. Mitchell contends that the police officer lacked the reasonable, articulable suspicion necessary to expand the scope of the stop and to pat-down search him when he exited the car. Alternatively, Mitchell argues that one of his sentences must be vacated because both offenses were committed as part of the same behavioral incident. We conclude that the officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion to ask about drug- related activity and to conduct a pat-down search of Mitchell, and we therefore affirm Mitchell's convictions. We reverse and remand for the district court to vacate one of Mitchell's sentences.

Appellant challenges the district court's denial of his motion under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(e) for relief from his indeterminate civil commitment. He makes essentially two arguments: (1) he has a right to represent himself in civil-commitment proceedings, and the district court violated that right, amounting to structural error, by appointing counsel; and (2) his motion is proper under rule 60.02 because he does not seek discharge from civil commitment but vacation of the order appointing counsel that predated his civil commitment. We affirm.

We reverse in part and remand for reconsideration of the sufficiency of the trust accounting because the district court erred in its findings concerning payments made by the trustees to the appellant. We affirm the district court's orders denying appellant's motion to remove the trustees and granting summary judgment on numerous claims because the district court did not err or abuse its discretion. We also affirm the district court's imposition of sanctions under Minn. R. Civ. P. 11 because it did not abuse its discretion.

Four siblings sued their mother, alleging that she stole cryptocurrency and certain items of personal property from them. The district court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We conclude that the district court did not err by ruling that plaintiffs failed to state a viable conversion claim with respect to the cryptocurrency. But we conclude that the district court erred by ruling that plaintiffs failed to state viable conversion and civil-theft claims with respect to the personal property. Therefore, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

In this appeal from a pretrial order finding him incompetent to stand trial, appellant argues that the district court erred when it found that his written objection to the court examiner's competency report was untimely and denied his request for a contested competency hearing. We affirm.

Appellant challenges the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. Appellant, the back-seat passenger in a car that a sheriff's deputy stopped for speeding, argues that the deputy expanded the scope of the traffic stop without reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity by asking the car's occupants about marijuana use and by removing appellant from the car. Appellant further argues that, after the deputy removed him from the car, the deputy conducted a pat-frisk for weapons without a reasonable belief that appellant was armed and dangerous. We conclude that the officer lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity to justify expanding the traffic stop into a drug investigation by asking about marijuana use. We therefore reverse.

Appellant challenges his conviction of second-degree sale of a controlled substance in a school zone, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the jury's guilty verdict. Because the state did not prove that the sale occurred in a school zone, we reverse and remand.