Listen to this articleCriminal
Controlled Substance Crimes
Permitting a Child to Ingest
This case raised the question of whether the State must prove that a person charged with causing or permitting a child to ingest methamphetamine knew, at the time of the act, that the child was under the age of 18. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of knowingly permitting a child to ingest methamphetamine. On appeal, defendant argued that the plain language of Minn. Stat. § 152.137, subd. 2(b), required the State to prove he knew the child was under the age of 18. Because the State did not submit evidence defendant explicitly admitted he knew the victim was a child, defendant argued the State’s evidence failed to prove such knowledge. The Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. It held that Minn. Stat. § 152.137, subd. 2(b), does not require knowledge that the child was under the age of 18.
The Supreme Court held that it did not need to decide whether Minn. Stat. § 152.137, subd. 2(b), requires the defendant to know the victim is a child because the circumstantial evidence here, which included the defendant’s contact with the child’s host family and his weekly contact with the child, was inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt. Affirmed.
A22-0200 State v. Lehman (Court of Appeals)
Expert Witnesses
False Medical Testimony
Petitioner was indicted for, tried for, and convicted by a jury of two counts of second-degree felony murder for the death of his 2-month-old son. Petitioner sought postconviction relief, which the District Court granted, based in part on the fact that two expert witnesses testifying for the State presented false evidence at petitioner’s trial. The State argued that the District Court abused its discretion when it ordered a new trial for petitioner. The Court of Appeals rejected that argument.
The Supreme Court held that (1) the test articulated in Larrison v. United States, 24 F.2d 82 (7th Cir. 1928), applies when the State mistakenly presented false expert testimony about a medical fact that its own expert later admitted could not have been true; and (2) the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it granted petitioner a new trial on the grounds of false testimony because the petitioner met his burden under the Larrison test.
A22-0749 Kaiser v. State (Court of Appeals)
Orders
Attorney Discipline
Public Reprimand
Daniel M. Gallatin was publicly reprimanded.
Attorney Discipline
Suspension
Eduardo E. Drake was suspended from the practice of law for a minimum of 90 days.
Rules for Admission to the Bar
Bar Exam
The Supreme Court accepted a recommendation filed by the Minnesota Board of Law Examiners to adopt the Next Generation of the Bar Examination and created an Implementation Committee to further explore and develop a curricular-based pathway for assessment. It also directed the Committee to further explore a supervised practice-based pathway for assessment. The Committee must file its report related to an alternative curricular-based pathway for assessment by July 1, 2026 and its report related to an alternative supervised practice-based pathway for assessment by July 1, 2027.