March 20, 2024, Minnesota Supreme Court Caselaw Update
Today, March 20, 2024, the Minnesota Supreme Court released opinions in four criminal cases.
First, in State v. Wiggins, A22-1281, the supreme court reversed Mr. Wiggins’s aiding and abetting first-degree murder conviction and remanded for a new trial because the district court provided the jury with an erroneous aiding and abetting jury instruction.
Mr. Wiggins is the codefendant of the defendant in State v. Segura, where the supreme court similarly reversed the defendant’s aiding and abetting first-degree murder conviction. In both cases, the same district court judge provided erroneous aiding-and-abetting jury instructions. In Wiggins, the district court instructed the jury that it could find Wiggins guilty if it found that Wiggins “or another (or others)” satisfied each element of the offense. The instruction was erroneous because it allowed the jury to find Wiggins guilty if it found that Wiggins’s codefendants, and not Wiggins, violated the elements of the statute. The supreme court has rejected this specific instruction in prior cases.
Hennepin County District Court; aiding and abetting first-degree murder
OPA221281-032024.pdf (mncourts.gov)
Second, in State v. Bradley, A22-0960, the supreme court decided two issues. First, the court concluded that the use of an ordinary object in a manner that is likely to produce death or great bodily harm results in the object being a “dangerous weapon” under Minnesota Statutes section 60.02, subdivision 6.
The defendant struck his girlfriend with a broom handle and argued that the broom handle was not a dangerous weapon. The supreme court disagreed and determined that a broom is a dangerous weapon when it is used in a manner likely to produce death or great bodily harm.
Second, the court concluded that under Minnesota Statutes section 609.04, subdivision 1(1), domestic assault is not a lesser degree of second-degree assault. As a result, the defendant could be convicted of both crimes for the same conduct.
St. Louis County District Court; second-degree assault; domestic assault
OPA220960-032024.pdf (mncourts.gov)
Third, in State v. Tichich, A22-1063, the supreme court decided two issues. First, the supreme court determined that new expert opinion that differs from a trial expert’s opinion does not establish hat the trial expert’s opinion was false and is therefore reviewed under the test articulated in Rainer v. State, 566 N.W.2d 692, 695 (Minn. 1997) and not reviewed under the test articulated in Larrison v. United States, 24 F.2d 82 (7th Cir. 1928). Second, guilty verdicts for third-degree criminal sexual conduct and attempted third-degree criminal sexual conduct are legally consistent.
Hennepin County District Court; postconviction review; third-degree criminal sexual conduct; attempted third-degree criminal sexual conduct
OPA220960-032024.pdf (mncourts.gov)
Finally, in State v. Glover, A23-0154, the supreme court affirmed Glover’s first-degree murder while committing a drive by shooting conviction. The supreme court rejected Glover’s four challenges to his conviction. First, the district court did not err in concluding that the police had probable cause to arrest him. Second, the district court did not clearly err in finding that the police did not materially misrepresent information in the application for a warrant to search appellant’s residence. Third, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant’s motion to admit reverse-Spreigl evidence. Finally, the district court did not violate appellant’s confrontation rights by denying defense counsel’s request to cross-examine the lead investigator about whether police had investigated unnamed suspects from a prior shooting of one of the victims.
Ramsey County District Court; first-degree murder while committing a drive by shooting
