The fate of Mohamed Noor’s third-degree murder conviction could have an impact on other high-profile Minnesota cases.
Former Minneapolis police officer Mohamed Noor leaves the Hennepin County Government Center in Minneapolis in 2019. (Evan Frost/Minnesota Public Radio via AP)
ST. PAUL, Minn. (CN) The Minnesota Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in the case of Mohamed Noor, a former Minneapolis police officer convicted of third-degree murder for the 2017 killing of an Australian woman who called 911 to report a possible sexual assault.
Noor is the first police officer in Minnesota history to be convicted of murder for an on-duty killing, but Wednesday’s arguments didn’t focus on whether his conduct was justified.
(AP Photo/Richard Vogel, File)
ST. PAUL, Minn. (CN) Two workers’ compensation insurers took on Minnesota’s medical marijuana program Monday at the state’s high court, arguing that continued federal prohibition of cannabis forbids them from paying for injured workers’ use of the drug for pain relief.
The Minnesota Supreme Court heard oral arguments early Monday in the cases of Susan Musta and Daniel Bierbach, two Minnesotans who sought to use medical marijuana to treat pain and disability from work-related injuries. Attorneys for their respective employers’ workers-compensation providers argued that coverage of medical marijuana would put insurers at risk of aiding and abetting a federal crime.
That it is how the Minnesota Supreme Court, with an assist from
Black
’s Law Dictionary, decided Wednesday that the word “several” needs to be interpreted, at least as it relates to Minn. Stat. § 542.10.
“We conclude that ‘several’ means ‘separate,’ and therefore we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and grant the petition for a writ of mandamus,” Justice Natalie Hudson wrote for a unanimous court.
The term seems to have confused a few lower-court judges who tried to take on the vexatious word, which is how it landed on the justices’ doorstep.
The case is
Manselle v. Krogstad, et al. It pivots on the courts’ interpretation of the Minnesota law that allows for “several defendants residing in different counties” to compel a change of venue, just so long as the parties agree to the move.
Minnesota Supreme Court upholds Swift County conviction challenged over evidence gathered without defense counsel present
Defendant argued that photographs taken of scratches on his arm following his first court appearance and without an attorney to represent him denied his right to counsel. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled the photographs did not deny the defendant a fair trial, but two of the justices filed a dissenting opinion. 7:11 pm, Apr. 1, 2021 ×
Raciel Zalva Zaldivar-Proenza
ST. PAUL The Minnesota Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of a Swift County defendant for criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree.
Two of the chief justices filed a dissenting opinion in the decision released March 31.
The Minnesota Supreme Court Chamber, located inside the Minnesota State Capitol in St. Paul. (Photo via Jonathunder/Wikipedia Commons)
ST. PAUL, Minn. (CN) Minnesota’s highest court unanimously upheld the state’s nonconsensual-porn statute Wednesday, bringing holiday cheer to privacy advocates and a year-end letdown to free-speech groups.
The court found that the statute, which has been embroiled in litigation since its passage in 2016, criminalizes constitutionally protected speech but is focused tightly enough on preventing the nonconsensual dissemination of explicit images to stand up to strict scrutiny.
“The constitutional right to free speech stands as a bedrock for our democracy,” Justice Natalie Hudson wrote in the 26-page opinion. “To protect this fundamental promise, we evaluate any encroachment on free speech with both caution and skepticism.”