Minnesota Appeals
LightNews LightNews
banner
mnappeals.bsky.social
Minnesota Appeals
@mnappeals.bsky.social
26 followers 1 following 19 posts
Posting about Minnesota’s appellate courts.

Not affiliated with the Minnesota Judicial Branch.
Posts Replies Media Videos
mnappeals.bsky.social
Issue: does the quorum clause require a majority of currently elected and serving members of a chamber, or a majority of that chamber’s number of seats.

State House of Reps. has 134 seats but one was vacated before session began. Are 67 members a quorum or 68 members?

Language at issue:
Sec. 13. Quorum. A majority of A majority of each house constitutes a quorum to transact business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day and compel the attendance of absent members in the manner and under the penalties it may provide.
January 23, 2025 at 12:39 PM
mnappeals.bsky.social
Buxton v. Meyer et al., No. A23-1985

Petition: macsnc.courts.state.mn.us/ctrack/docum...

Response: macsnc.courts.state.mn.us/ctrack/docum...

Issues granted:
Whether a court may deny the grant of official immunity by ignoring undisputed evidence in the record and interpreting a jail policy, utilizing the term “should” as eliminating any discretion reserved to staff?
November 22, 2024 at 3:10 AM
mnappeals.bsky.social
State v. Steeprock, No. A23-0875

Petition: macsnc.courts.state.mn.us/ctrack/docum...

Response & Cross petition: macsnc.courts.state.mn.us/ctrack/docum...

Issues granted:
When seeking a DNA sample from a charged defendant, is Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 9.02 meaningless, because a search warrant is necessary? And if there was error in not obtaining a warrant here, is a new trial required? Minnesota statutes section 624.04 provides that a criminal defendant cannot be convicted upon the uncorroborated “testimony” of an accomplice. The primary evidence against Steeprock was the unsworn, un-cross-examined accusations of his alleged accomplice. Did the district court prejudicially err by denying Steeprock’s motion to instruct the jury that the State was required to corroborate those accusations? Hearsay is admissible as against the declarant’s penal interest only if the statement is so self-incriminating that no reasonable person would make the statement if it were true. The declarant called Steeprock a “f—ing shooter,” claimed Steeprock threatened her with a gun, and claimed Steeprock discarded a gun. Were these statements so against the declarant’s penal interest that they must have been true?
November 22, 2024 at 3:10 AM