Exoneration Compensation

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Exoneration compensation granted

Defendant pleaded guilty to driving while impaired by a hazardous substance, Difluoroethane.  The Minnesota Supreme Court concluded that Difluoroethane was not a statutorily defined “hazardous substance.”  The trial court therefore vacated defendant’s conviction.  Thereafter, defendant petitioned the court for exoneration compensation.  The trial court dismissed defendant’s petition, reasoning that it had not vacated defendant’s conviction on a ground consistent with innocence, a prerequisite for exoneration compensation.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that defendant’s conviction was vacated because his conduct did not violate the state, and that this is a ground consistent with innocence.  Reversed and remanded.

Livingston v. State, A19-1243, Wright County.

Minnesota Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

By |2020-05-23T00:57:44+00:00May 23rd, 2020|Victories/Case Law Updates|0 Comments

About the Author:

Leave A Comment