Stay of Adjudication - Calvin Johnson Law Firm LLC got a Stay of Adjudication on a plea to a Sexual Solicitation charge, the Criminal Sexual Conduct charge being dismissed. The client received No Jail.
Disorderly Conduct - Three counts of Felony Criminal Damage to Property (1st Degree, 3rd Degree, and 4th Degree) reduced to a Disorderly Conduct.
Kidnapping Charge Reduced - Client was originally charged with one count of Felony Kidnapping, and one count of Felony Terroristic Threats. He pled to a reduced charge of Misdemeanor OFP violation, with No Jail and No Conviction on his record, after the alleged victim was proven to be his lover, and that she had found another man while the client was overseas defending our country.
Crim Sex charge Dismissed - Client pleaded to an amended Count of 5th Degree Assault. One count of 3rd Degree and two counts of 4th Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct were dismissed, because the State was unable to produce It's witness.
Dismissal - A Felony Terroristic Threats charge, with a potential sentence of 5 years and/or $1000 fine, was dismissed when client pled to a Petty Misdemeanor Disorderly Conduct, which is a "not a crime" in the State of Minnesota (because it is not punishable by jail time).
3rd Deg Assault - Not Guilty - The Jury found the Defendant not guilty of a 3rd Degree Assault charge at Trial.
The statute was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to claim involving farmer who offered to cure cancer with milk from cow injected with ill person’s blood.
Cumulative effects of errors occurring during trial constituted denial of right to fair trial, such errors included extensive inquiry into details surrounding an arson investigation, inquiry into fact that defendant mother had been sexually abused as a child, questioning suggesting inference to the jurors that defendant mother had been given polygraph test and had failed it, and elicitation of testimony of pictures of defendant husband’s preferred sexual practice.
The record that demonstrates: (a) Dahl filled out a standard time sheet with his request for overtime compensation; (b) his supervisor approved the time sheet; and (c) Dahl’s labor contract with the county provided a minimum of two hours’ compensation for even one minute of overtime work, could not sustain a conviction under Minn.Stat. §609.45.
Evidence failed to support finding that defendant, who was arrested after discovery of beer in automobile in which he was an occupant along with minors, bought the beer partly for consumption outside the car and that some of it was consumed outside the car, and therefore State failed to meet its burden of establishing that the offenses of open bottle and furnishing liquor to person under age 19 were not part of a single behavioral incident; as a result, conviction of open bottle offense barred later prosecution of defendant on furnishing charge.
Admission of expert testimony concerning typical post-rape symptoms and behavior of rape victims, and expert’s opinion that complaining witness was victim of rape and had not fantasized rape was reversible error. This was the first case in Watonwan County utilizing an interpreter for trial.
The trial court improperly relied on only one factor in the statutory child custody guidelines and did not make sufficient findings to assure that fault in seeking marital dissolution did not influence its custody award. Religious affiliation, alone, does not justify award of custody.
In a prosecution for criminal sexual conduct in the third degree, scientific evidence that the defendant was the father of a baby subsequently born to the victim was admissible to prove that sexual penetration occurred provided, however, that the expert evidence could not take the form of statistical evidence suggesting, by quantification, satisfaction of the requirement that guilt be established beyond a reasonable doubt.
Regarding the court’s assertion of jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, Minn. Stat. § 518A.03, Subd. 1, and ordering return of the child to Minnesota and into the custody of the respondent.
Defendant was seized, within the meaning of Article I, Section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution, when an armed and uniformed police officer approached defendant in a bar and asked to see identification for proof of legal age to consume alcohol. Officer did not articulate sufficient individualized suspicion of criminal activity to justify seizure when officer failed to articulate why particular defendant was asked to produce identification.