Volume 6 — North Western Reporter, Third Series

The district court did not abuse its discretion under the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act, Minnesota Statutes section 629.292 (2022), by beginning trial beyond the statutory 6-month period after finding good cause for a continuance because defense counsel required additional time to prepare for trial. Affirmed.

1. The district court abused its discretion by allowing the admission of evidence on direct examination of anonymous, threatening phone calls a witness received before trial when the minimal probative value of the threat evidence was substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice that its admission posed to the defendant. 1 2. Because the defendant has not demonstrated a reasonable possibility that the admission of evidence on direct examination of anonymous, threatening phone calls a witness received before trial significantly impacted the jury's verdict, the defendant is not entitled to a new trial. Affirmed.

1. The district court did not err by denying the defendant's motion to suppress evidence stemming from a genetic analysis of DNA collected from crime scene materials because the defendant had abandoned his subjective expectation of privacy in that information by leaving his semen at the scene of the crime. 2. The district court did not err by denying the defendant's motion to suppress evidence stemming from a genetic analysis of DNA collected from his garbage because law enforcement lawfully and independently obtained identical information from a DNA sample the defendant voluntarily provided. 3. The district court abused its discretion by denying the defendant's motion to present alternative-perpetrator evidence because the defendant's proffered evidence clearly had an inherent tendency to connect the alternative perpetrator to the commission of the crime and could have been admitted under the ordinary rules of evidence, and the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Reversed and remanded.

1. The district court did not err in concluding that the genetic analysis of a napkin discarded by appellant was not a search because the analysis was only capable of matching appellant's DNA to the DNA found at the crime scene and appellant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his identifying information. 2. Any error in precluding appellant from presenting alternative-perpetrator evidence at trial was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 3. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded testimony from appellant's expert as late discovery because the district court properly exercised its authority to respond to violations of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure. 4. The State did not commit prosecutorial misconduct during its closing argument because none of the prosecutor's statements constituted error. 5. The circumstantial evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the jury's verdict that appellant was guilty of first-degree premeditated murder, and appellant advances no reasonable hypothesis inconsistent with appellant's guilt. 6. Appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of his constitutional rights because appellant has not demonstrated that trial counsel's personal interests materially limited the representation, and appellant was not prejudiced by the representation. 7. No cumulative errors denied appellant his right to a fair trial where only one potential error was present, and the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 8. It was error to convict appellant of both first-degree felony murder and the lesser-included offense of second-degree intentional murder. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

1. Search warrants authorizing seizure and search of electronic devices were sufficiently particular under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 10, of the Minnesota Constitution. 2. The guilty verdict in this case was surely unattributable to the evidence obtained from the search of a law office and so we need not decide whether the warrants to search that law office were executed in an unreasonable manner because any error in the evidence's admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 3. When searching the law office of an attorney who is suspected of a crime, specific procedures to safeguard privileged materials are required under the supervisory powers of the Minnesota Supreme Court. Affirmed.

1. Minnesota Statutes section 145.682 (2022) did not modify the common-law standard for causation in medical malpractice cases to require plaintiffs to satisfy a more stringent burden of proof to establish causation than is required in other negligence cases. 2. A genuine issue of material fact over whether a health care provider caused injury to the decedent in a medical malpractice claim precluded summary judgment. Reversed and remanded.

1. The court has subject matter jurisdiction over this petition under Minn. Stat. § 204B.44 (2022). 2. Because the Legal Marijuana Now Party (LMNP) did not maintain a state central committee subject to the state convention's control, as Minn. Stat. § 202A.12, subd. 2 (2022), requires, and the LMNP's constitutional challenge to Minn. Stat. § 202A.12, subd. 2, fails, the LMNP has not satisfied the requirements to be a major political party under Minn. Stat. § 200.02, subd. 7(a) (Supp. 2023). Petition granted; motion to dismiss denied.

1. The scope of the issues preserved for consideration here, under an exception to the mootness doctrine, permits the review of whether the Emergency Management Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 12.01–.61 (2022), can, in the abstract, authorize a sitting governor to declare a peacetime emergency for a pandemic, whether Governor Walz was specifically authorized to declare a peacetime emergency in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and whether the Act as a whole violates the nondelegation doctrine. 2. The Emergency Management Act authorizes the declaration of a peacetime emergency in response to a pandemic and did not require the Governor to make an evidentiary showing that the Act's requirements were satisfied before declaring a peacetime emergency in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. 3. The Emergency Management Act does not provide for an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority under the Minnesota Constitution. Affirmed.

1. Error in granting a defendant's demand to execute sentence is invited error, which is subject to plain-error review. 2. A district court may grant a defendant's demand to execute sentence even if the conditions of probation are less onerous than the conditions of the executed sentence. Affirmed.

1. A party may use allegations in a verified complaint to support or oppose a motion for summary judgment if (1) the allegations are made on personal knowledge, (2) the allegations are based on facts that would be admissible in evidence, and (3) the face of the complaint shows the competence of the verifying party to testify on the matters stated, consistent with Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.03(d). 2. Minnesota does not recognize a cause of action for breach of an illusory contract.

A plaintiff asserting a personal-injury claim based on the allegedly tortious conduct of a deceased person must sue the personal representative of the deceased person's estate, as authorized by Minnesota Statutes section 573.01 (Supp. 2023). A plaintiff does not properly commence such a personal-injury action by suing a person appointed trustee to pursue a wrongful-death claim for the benefit of the deceased person's surviving spouse and next of kin pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 573.02, subdivision 3 (2022).