Tuesday, April 2, 2013
Supreme Court Courtroom,
State Capitol
State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Christopher Dineaa Bahtuoh,
Appellant – Case Nos. A10-1584, A12-1281: A jury found
appellant Christopher Bahtuoh guilty of several offenses, including
first-degree drive-by shooting murder committed for the benefit of a
gang. Bahtuoh appealed his conviction, and the supreme court granted
his request to stay his appeal in order to pursue postconviction relief. Bahtuoh
filed a petition for postconviction relief, which the district court
denied.
In a consolidated appeal
involving Bahtuoh’s direct and postconviction appeals, the following issues are
presented to the supreme court: (1) whether Bahtuoh is entitled to a
new trial because the district court erroneously instructed the jury on
accomplice liability; (2) whether Bahtuoh received ineffective assistance of
counsel; (3) whether the district court abused its discretion when it denied
Bahtuoh’s motion for a mistrial; and (4) whether there was insufficient
evidence to prove that Bahtuoh intended to aid the shooter in the commission of
a crime. (Hennepin County)
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Supreme Court Courtroom,
State Capitol
Nonoral: Otha
Eric Townsend, petitioner, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case
No. A12-1734: In 1994, a jury found appellant
Otha Townsend guilty of first-degree murder, and Townsend was sentenced to life
in prison. Townsend subsequently pleaded guilty to attempted
first-degree murder and was sentenced to 72-months in prison, to be served
consecutively to his life sentence. The supreme court affirmed
his convictions on direct appeal. In May 2012, Townsend filed a
motion challenging his sentence. This motion was Townsend’s fourth
request for postconviction relief. The district court denied the
motion.
On
appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether
the district court erroneously treated Townsend’s motion as a petition for
postconviction relief; (2) whether Townsend’s claims are time barred under
Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4 (2012); (3) whether Townsend’s claims are
procedurally barred by State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 243 N.W.2d
737 (1976); and (4) whether Townsend’s jail credit should apply to his sentence
for first-degree murder. (Ramsey County)
Thursday, April 4, 2013
Supreme Court Courtroom,
State Capitol
Nonoral: Rusttee
Allan Torres, petitioner, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent
– Case No. A12-0570: Appellant Rusttee Torres was
convicted, following a jury trial, of first-degree murder. The supreme
court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal. In March 2011,
Torres filed his second petition for postconviction relief, based, in part, on
newly discovered evidence. The district court held an evidentiary
hearing and then denied Torres’ petition.
On
appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether the district court
abused its discretion when it concluded that Torres had failed to establish
that he was entitled to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. (Rice
County)
Monday, April 8, 2013
Courtroom 300, Minnesota
Judicial Center
State of Minnesota, Appellant/Cross-Respondent vs.George Cornelius Watkins, Respondent/Cross-Appellant – A11-1793: Respondent George Watkins was convicted of violations
of a domestic abuse no-contact order (DANCO). In order to convict
Watkins, the State was required to prove that he “knowingly violated” the
DANCO. The trial court’s final instructions to the jury omitted this
element. In addition to sentencing Watkins to an executed term of 44
months in prison, the trial court imposed a new 5-year DANCO. The
court of appeals reversed Watkins’s conviction.
On
appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether
the trial court’s plain error failure to properly instruct the jury on the
element of intent was prejudicial as a matter of law; and (2) whether the trial
court exceeded its statutory authority when it imposed a DANCO as part of an
executed sentence. (Hennepin County)
State of Minnesota, Respondent vs.
Juan Humberto Castillo-Alvarez, Appellant – Case Nos. A11-1379, A12-0081: Gregory Erickson
was kidnapped in Iowa and then driven to Minnesota where he was murdered. In
2004, Iowa charged appellant Juan Castillo-Alvarez with the murder of
Erickson. Following a jury trial, Castillo-Alvarez was convicted of
second-degree murder. In 2009, the Iowa Court of Appeals reversed
the conviction based on a violation of Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.33, which establishes
a speedy trial rule.
In 2010, Minnesota
charged Castillo-Alvarez with the murder of Erickson. Castillo-Alvarez
moved to dismiss the charge, claiming the double jeopardy protections of the
Minnesota Constitution and Minn. Stat. § 609.045 (2012) barred
prosecution. He also moved to suppress his out-of-state, unrecorded
statement to an FBI agent, claiming the statement was obtained in violation of State
v. Scales, 518 N.W.2d 587 (Minn. 1994). The district court
denied both motions. Following a jury trial, Castillo-Alvarez was
convicted of second-degree murder. The court of appeals affirmed the
conviction.
On appeal to the supreme
court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether the double
jeopardy protections of the Minnesota Constitution and Minn.
Stat. § 609.045 bar prosecution; and (2) whether Scalesapplies
to out-of-state interrogations. (Jackson County)
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Courtroom 300, Minnesota
Judicial Center
State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Eddie Cortez
Smith, Appellant – Case No. A11-1687: Appellant Eddie Smith was driving a
car at a speed of more than 50 miles per hour in a residential neighborhood
when he hit another car in which 93-year-old Edith Schouveller was a
passenger. Smith had an alcohol concentration of .11 shortly after
the accident.
Schouveller’s
spinal cord was fractured during the accident. She spent 13 days in
the hospital and was then transferred to a nursing home and rehabilitation care
center. After two days at the nursing home, she was admitted to the
hospital and diagnosed with pneumonia. Several days later, doctors
determined that Schouveller required intubation. Schouveller,
however, had executed a living will with a do-not-resuscitate order specifying
that she not be intubated. Doctors did not intubate Schouveller, and
she died later that evening.
After
a jury trial, Smith was convicted, in part, of criminal vehicular
homicide. The court of appeals affirmed Smith’s conviction.
On
appeal to the supreme court, Smith raises the following issues in his
brief: (1) whether the State failed to prove that Smith
caused the death of Schouveller; (2) whether Schouveller’s do-not-resuscitate
order was a superseding cause of Schouveller’s death; and (3) whether Smith is
entitled to a new trial because the district court failed to instruct the jury
on the effect of a finding that something was a superseding cause of
Schouveller’s death. (Ramsey County)
No comments:
Post a Comment