Recent Grants, Petitions For Further Review

State v. Adrian Lamont Patterson.  Here’s how the post on this case begins:

A jury convicted Mr. Patterson of aiding and abetting drive by shooting and aiding and abetting second degree murder.  The real dust up in this appeal, however, is over who gets to be the lawyer.

State v. Brandon Lee Bible.  The unpublished Opinion from the Court of Appeals is here.  That court summarized the jury waiver issue this way: 

Before appellant’s jury trial, defense counsel informed the district court that appellant was willing to stipulate that he was ―a convicted felon‖ ineligible to possess a firearm, so that the jury would not receive information about his prior qualifying felony convictions. The district court accepted the stipulation and informed counsel that they could tell the jury that appellant had stipulated ―that he was convicted of a prior felony that is a prerequisite for—that he is no longer able to possess firearms or however you want that language.‖ Appellant was present in court when the stipulation was received,
but he was not questioned regarding the stipulation and did not personally waive his right to a jury trial on the element of his ineligibility to possess a firearm.

Here’s the Order on the grant of review:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of the State of Minnesota for further review be, and the same is, granted on the jury-waiver issue and all proceedings are stayed pending final disposition in State v. Kuhlmann, No. A09-915. The petition is denied on all remaining issues.

I wrote about Kulhmann here.

State v. Franklin Clyde Jones.  This is another jury waiver issue; see Bible above and Kuhlmann.

State v. Moses Hillary Digga.  This is also a jury waiver issue; see Bible above and Kuhlmann.

State v. Mitchell Ray Gerold.  Here’s the introduction from the unpublished Opinion of the Court of Appeals:

The state contends that the district court‟s admission of DNA evidence was prohibited under Minn. R. Evid. 412 and was not required to satisfy the defendant‟s constitutional rights. Because respondent on the pretrial record failed to show that the DNA factor was sufficiently probative to overcome its prejudicial effects, we reverse.

The DNA from the victim’s underwear excluded Mr. Gerold.  The trial court admitted this DNA evidence on the basis of this defense argument:

Before trial, respondent moved the court for an order allowing him to admit at trial the DNA evidence obtained from K.J.H.‟s underwear. Although his motion acknowledged that the DNA evidence did not meet the requirements of Minn. R. Evid. 412 for admission of a victim‟s prior sexual conduct, respondent claimed that it was admissible because of his rights of due process, confrontation, and presenting evidence in his defense. He argued that because the charge of first-degree criminal sexual conduct requires the state to prove that he caused injury to K.J.H., the DNA evidence was relevant to show that K.J.H. was likely engaged in sexual contact before the alleged assault and that the previous sexual conduct may explain her injuries.

State v. Donelly Edward Boeder.  This is a challenge to the admissibility of first void urine testing in DWI prosecutions.  Here’s how the Court of Appeals Opinion starts:

Appellant argues that the district court erred by admitting his urine-test result without holding a Frye-Mack hearing to determine whether urine testing is generally accepted within the relevant scientific community and abused its discretion by excluding his proffered expert testimony.

State v. Matt Dixon, Jr.  This is another challenge to the admissibility of first void urine testing in DWI prosecutions.