Wednesday, June 8, 2011

Other Grants For Further Review

State v. Gary Lynn Underdahl.  This is a sentencing issue, described here:

Minn. Stat. § 609.221, subd. 2(b) (2008), provides that a person who is convicted of assaulting a peace officer ―is not eligible for probation, parole, discharge, work release, or supervised release, until that person has served the full term of imprisonment as provided by law.‖ (Emphasis added.) In granting Leathers‘s motion, the district court noted that section 609.221, subdivision 2(b), does not define ―term of imprisonment,‖ but that Minn. Stat. § 244.01, subd. 8 (2008), defines ―term of imprisonment‖ as a period of time equal to two-thirds of a defendant‘s executed sentence.

Eligibility for supervised release comes up in several criminal statutes; there are several cases raising this issue pending in the supreme court.

State v. Gerald Alan Hanson.  Here’s the introduction from the Court of Appeals:

The district court may not rely on circumstantial evidence to convict a defendant of possessing drugs with the intent to sell unless the state’s evidence of intent excludes beyond a reasonable doubt the possibility that the defendant intended only to use the drugs personally.

State v. Mahdi Hassan Ali.  The issue here is over Ali’s age at the time of the alleged offenses, which impacts the route by which to certify Ali to stand trial as an adult.  The Supreme Court has taken accelerated review of this question.

State v. Thomas Allen Zais.  This is a marital privilege case.  Here’s the introduction from the Court of Appeals:

This appeal is from the district court‟s pretrial order in a prosecution for disorderly conduct, concluding as a matter of law that, absent Thomas Zais‟s consent, his wife, Debra Zais, may not testify against him. Because we conclude that Debra Zais‟s testimony comes within the exception to the marital testimonial privilege in Minn. Stat. § 595.02, subd. 1(a) (2008), which permits spousal testimony in a criminal action or proceeding for a crime committed by one spouse against the other, we reverse and remand.

No comments:

Post a Comment