Success/Results2020-02-11T14:33:46+00:00

Civil rights violations

Service of process on County Auditor not effective even with admission of service

Plaintiffs sued the County Auditor for damages in regard to their drainage.  The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of County Auditor on the grounds that service was not effective.  Plaintiff’s appealed arguing that service was proper.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff landowner’s personal service on the County Auditor was not effective without an agreement for alternative service, noting that the Auditor’s signature on the admission of service did not reveal an intention to waive traditional service of process, or, the protection of Rule 4.02.  Affirmed.

Gieseki v. Nicollet County Drainage Auth. for County Ditch No. 86A, A19-0955, Nicollet County.

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

2nd Amendment rights in child custody case

Second Amendment Lawyer Lynne Torgerson wins appeal on 2nd Amendment rights in family child custody dispute

Ms. Torgerson was retained to represent a Veteran in connection with a child custody dispute on an appeal from a decision out of Olmsted County, State of Minnesota.

Ms. Torgerson’s client is an Iraq War Veteran, honorably discharged.  He is divorced.  He and his ex-wife share two children.  He has remarried, and has two additional children from his second marriage.  Ms. Torgerson’s client and his wife are 2nd Amendment enthusiasts.  Ms. Torgerson’s client owns a number of firearms, enjoys target shooting with law enforcement on his extensive land, and enjoys teaching his children gun safety, self defense, etc.  In contrast, his ex-wife opposes all such activities.  Even so, there was no request to limit Ms. Torgerson’s client in regard to firearms.  Notwithstanding, the trial court Referee, sua sponte, issued an order that Ms. Torgerson’s client was required to have all his firearms locked in a safe whenever he had custody of his children.  Accordingly, an appeal was taken, that included this issue.  On appeal, Ms. Torgerson’s client argued that such an order violated his Second Amendment rights.  Indeed, the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the Referee failed to make sufficient findings, and the trial court Referee’s order restricting Ms. Torgerson’s client’s Second Amendment rights was reversed, and remanded for findings.  Well done Ms. Torgerson.

1st degree controlled substance crime

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Reasonable suspicion is required for a dog sniff

Defendant was convicted of 1st degree controlled substance sale.  Defendant argued that the trial erred in finding that police had reasonable, articulable suspicion to conduct a dog sniff outside his apartment.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that informant’s substantial history of reliability and officer’s corroboration of defendant’s identity, residence, and truck was sufficient.  Affirmed.

State v. Bravo, A19-0667, Ramsey County.

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

Controlled substance crime

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Aid and abet controlled substance crime

Defendant was convicted of aiding and abetting a controlled substance crime and he appealed, arguing the evidence was insufficient.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld defendant’s conviction on the grounds that (1) the jury could have inferred defendant’s knowledge and intent to further the commission of the crime based on his presence at the scene, (2) his close association with the dealer before and after the crime, and (3) his flight from the scene of the crime with the dealer.

State v. Walker, A19-0546, Stearns County.

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

Probation violation

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Should the trial court have revoked defendant’s probation?

On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion when it revoke his probation because the record did not support a finding that the need for confienment outweighted the policies favoring probation.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that there was no abuse of discretion, noting that it was defendant’s 3rd formal probation violation, he had previously failed to complete his ordered chemical dependency evaluation, and, he had failed to demonstrate any meaningful progress in his treatment goals.  Affirmed.

State v. Lehman, A19-1077, Stearns County.

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

Nonconsensual sexual contact

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Order for protection issued based upon wife’s testimony that husband engaged in nonconsensual contact

Wife sought an order for protection.  At the hearing, she testified that husband had engaged in nonconsensual contact.  The trial court issued the order for protection.  The husband appealed, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in issuing order for protection.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the wife’s testimony was sufficient to establish that the husband had engaged in nonconsensual sexual contact.  Affirmed.

McRunnel v. McRunnel, A19-0971, Norman County.

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

Service of process

Ineffective service of process on sheriff 

Plaintiff attempted to commence a lawsuit against a county sheriff’s department and a sheriff’s deputy.  The process server left copies of the summons and complaint with an employee of the sheriff’s office.  The county and the deputy moved to dismiss the lawsuite for insufficient service of process.  The trial court granted the motion, reasoning that the summons and complaint were not properly served because the county and the deputy had not authorized the sheriff’s office employee to accept service of process on their behalf.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed.

Eppolite v. Swenson, A19-1073, Chisago County

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

Self defense

CASE LAW UPDATE:  A homeowner has no duty to retreat from his own home before defending himself

The law provides that a homeowner is The King of his Castle.

Defendant was convicted of felony 2nd degree assault with a dangerous weapon.  On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court committed plain error when it included a clearly erroneous jury instruction.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that a individual does not have a duty to retreat from his home before defending himself.  The Court then held that the trial court’s instruction that the legal excuse of self defense was only available to those who acted honestly and in good faith, including the duty to avoid the danger if reasonable possible was plainly erroneous.  However, the conviction was not reversed because the defendant’s use of force, severely beating the victim with a wooden baseball bat, was not reasonable.  Affirmed.

State v. Onuko, A19-0701, Hennepin County.

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

Sentencing appeal in federal court

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Appeal becomes moot upon release from prison

Defendant was sentenced in his federal criminal case.  He appealed, raising the issue of whether the District Court when it denied his motion to correct or set aside the sentence.  While his appeal was pending, defendant was released from prison.  Accordingly, his appeal is moot.  Appeal is dismissed.

Owen v. United States, 17-3487, appealed from the District of North Dakota, Colloton, J.

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

Minnesota Second Amendment Lawyer Lynne Torgerson wins gun rights restoration out of Aitkin County

Minnesota Second Amendment Attorney Lynne Torgerson wins gun rights restoration out of the County of Aitkin, State of Minnesota

Minnesota Gun Rights Restoration Attorney Lynne Torgerson won a gun rights restoration case out of the County of Aitkin, State of Minnesota.  Ms. Torgerson’s client was 35 years old.  He owned his own home.  He was a high school graduate.  He had graduated from the University of Minnesota with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Business, and, a Minor in Psychology.  He had obtained a Real Estate License.  He had been employed as a Real Estate Agent for 10 years.  He grew up in a family of hunters who owned hunting land, which he desired to inherit.  He also wanted to enjoy hunting with his family again.  Approximately 14 years earlier, he became prohibited from possessing firearms due to a 5th degree felony possession of a controlled substance conviction.  About 13 years ealier, he also had a domestic misdemeanor harassment and criminal mischief conviction from another State.  Finding good case, the Aitkin County District Court granted his petition to restore his rights to possess firearms.  Well done Ms. Torgerson

Methamphetamine drug charge sentence in federal court

CASE LAW UPDATES:  Minor role reduction of sentence in federal court methamphetamine distribution case

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine.  After a sentencing hearing, the District Court denied defendant’s request for a minor role reduction, but sentenced defendant to the low end of the applicable advisory sentencing guidelines range.  Defendant appealed the denial of the minor role reduction.  The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that where a defendant knowingly participated as a drug mule, took steps to obtain transportation and to package and conceal the drugs he transported, the District Court did not err in denying a minor role reduction.  Affirmed.

United States v. Benite, 18-3047, appealed from the Eastern District of Arkansas, per curiam.

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

Sentencing in federal court

Sentence in federal court on revocation of supervised release

Well, as the saying goes . . . Don’t make a federal case out of it.  And for good reason!  They don’t mess around in federal court.

Defendant appealed from a two (2) year prison sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release.  On appeal, defendant argued that his sentence exceeded the statutory maximum.

Where the District Court was not obligated to consider or aggregate a prior revocation prison term when imposing a new sentence for revocation of supervised release, the District Court did not err by imposing the statutory maximum of two (2) years.  (No credit for prior time served!).  Affirmed.

United States v. Two Crow, 18-3252, appealed from the District of South Dakota, per curiam.

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

Possession with intent to distribute

Confidential informant tip and dog sniff

Gawd! . . . If you ever hear these two phrases in the same paragraph the result certainly can’t be good . . . .

Defendant was convicted in federal district court of possession with intent to distribute.  Defendant’s vehicle was stopped.  A confidential informant’s tip was the basis for the police conducting a dog sniff.  Defendant brought a motion to suppress, which was denied.  The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the search concluding that the confidential informant’s tip provided reasonable suspicion for the dog sniff, and that the traffic stop was not impermissibly extended.  Affirmed.

United States v. Harry, 18-2221, appealed from the Northern District of Iowa, Smith, J.

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

Federal supervised release

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Does defendant get credit on supervised release term for excess incarceration?

Defendant was sentenced to 63 months incarceration.  He served time beyond the 63 months.  The District Court imposed a supervised release term that did not grant him credit for the excess time served.  The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the District Court’s judgment on the grounds that prior case law foreclosed his argument and that he was not entitled to custody credit of excess incarceration on a term of supervised release.  Affirmed.

United States v. Walker, 18-3414, appealed from the District of Minnesota, per curiam.

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

2nd degree controlled substance crime

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Inventory search of vehicle after valid impoundment upheld as valid

Defendant was convicted of 2nd degree controlled substance crime in Cass County, State of Minnesota.  Defendant challenged the inventory search of his vehicle following its impoundment.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld the inventory search of defendant’s vehicle on the grounds that his vehicle was properly impounded because it was parked, in the middle of the night, on the should of a bridge, near a location where two highways merge, making it a traffic hazard.  Affirmed.

State v. Roybal, A19-0733, Cass County.

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

Minnesota Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson wins not guilty in domestic abuse jury trial

Minnesota Criminal Defense Attorney Lynne Torgerson won a not guilty verdict in a domestic assault jury trial

Minneapolis Criminal Defense Attorney Lynne Torgerson won a not guilty verdict in a domestic assault jury trial in the County of Jackson, Fifth Judicial District, State of Minnesota.  Ms. Torgerson’s client was charged with misdemeanor domestic assault in Jackson County, State of Minnesota.  The case was tried to a jury.  An eyewitness to the crime testified that he did not recognize anyone in the courtroom, including Ms. Torgerson’s client, as the perpetrator.  In a one (1) day trial, the jury found the defendant not guilty.  Well done Ms. Torgerson.

Motion to withdraw plea

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Defendant brought motion to withdraw plea to 3rd degree criminal sexual conduct

Defendant was charged with 3rd degree criminal sexual conduct.  During plea negotiations, the trial court made comments.  Defendant pleaded guilty to 3rd to criminal sexual conduct.  Subsequently, defendant brought a motion to withdraw his plea on the grounds that the trial court’s unsolicited comments during plea negotiations made his plea involuntary.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that defendant failed to establish that his guilty plea was involuntary.  Affirmed.

State v. Leason, A19-0876, Hennepin County.

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

Juvenile delinquency case

Adjudication of felony in juvenile delinquency case

Juvenile defendant in juvenile case was adjudicated delinquent in his felony level case.  The trial court then continued his stay of adjudication on the gross misdemeanor case in his juvenile case.  The juvenile defendant appealed these sentence dispositions.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that a trial court may exercise its broad discretion to adjudicate a child as a delinquent in a felony level delinquency case while continuing a stay of adjudication in a gross misdemeanor case; a trial court is not required to adjudicate only the least severe delinquency offense.  Affirmed.

In re Welfare of C.A.R., A19-1022, Fillmore County.

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

Criminal contempt of court

What is criminal contempt of court?

Defendant was convicted of three (3) counts of criminal contempt of court in Olmsted County, State of Minnesota.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed two (2) of the three (3) convictions.  The first and only count to be upheld as criminal contempt of court was when defendant spoke directly to the trial court after instruction to remain silent.  It was not criminal contempt when defendant said that all he wanted was for the record to reflect that he would be withdrawing his guilty plea.  When the trial court stated that It was now 60 days, and defendant replied “Thank you.  That’s all I wanted to say,” this latter statement was also not contempt.  Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

State v. Link, A19-0711, Olmsted County.

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

Probation violation hearing

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Defendant’s probation was revoked after he was terminated from sex offender treatment

A condition of defendant’s probation was that he successfully complete sex offender treatment.  Defendant was terminated from sex offender treatment and a probation violation was reported.  The trial court found that defendant had intentionally violated his probation.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld the revocation of defendant’s probation noting that the trial court considered defendant’s explanation that he missed his first two treatment sessions because he forgot about them.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that defendant’s failure to attend sex offender treatment, and his subsequent termination from it, did not occur through no fault of his own.  Affirmed.

State v. Ramat, A19-0895, Anoka County.

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

1st degree criminal sexual conduct

Video of forensic interview admitted in 1st degree criminal sexual conduct trial

Defendant was convicted of two counts of 1st degree criminal sexual conduct based upon evidence of sexual assault of a pre-teen relative over a period of years.  On appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that (1) the trial court did not err by allowing the State to play a video recorded forensic interview of the victim as prior consistent statements; (2) that the interviewer’s testimony concerning his observations of the victim during the interview was admissible; (3) that the jury instructions did not violate defendant’s right to a unanimous verdict; and (4) the lifetime conditional release was appropriate.  Affirmed.

State v. Murphy, A19-0322, Hennepin County.

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

Minnesota Second Amendment Attorney Lynne Torgerson wins gun rights restoration in Hennepin County

Minnesota Second Amendment Lawyer Lynne Torgerson wins gun rights restoration in Hennepin County

Minnesota Gun Rights Restoration Attorney Lynne Torgerson wins gun rights restoration case in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota.  As a juvenile and teenager, Ms. Torgerson’s client was adjudicated delinquent of 3rd degree burglary.  The incident involved Ms. Torgerson’s client and a friend breaking into a home and stealing between $1000 and $1500.  This disqualified him from possession of a firearm for life.  Now, 20 years later, client sought restoration of rights to possess firearms.  The State did not oppose the petition.  The Court noted that the disqualifying case did not involve firearms, and that client had no firearm related conviction.  Petitioner had obtained his GED, gotten married, and was a responsible, long term employee in oil derricking.  The trial court held that Petitioner was not a danger to public safety.  The Court, The Honorable Susan Burke presiding, finding good cause, granted Petitioner’s request to restore his gun rights.  Well done Ms. Torgerson.

Felon in possession of a firearm sentence

Federal court sentence for felon in possession of a firearm and possession of drugs with intent to distribute

Defendant pleaded guilty to felon in possession of a firearm and possession with intent to distribute.  Because defendant had prior felony convictions, the District Court determined that defendant was subject to an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act.

Where defendant failed to show that he was sentenced under the unconstitutional residual clause of the ACCA, he was not entitled to relief from his enhanced sentence.  Affirmed.

Turner v. United States, 18-2478, appealed from the Northern District of Iowa, per curiam.

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

Petition for postconviction relief

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Defendant brought a petition for postconviction relief to withdraw his plea to failing to register as a predatory offender

Defendant pleaded guilty to failing to register as a predatory offender in the Hennepin County District Court.  Subsequently, he brought a petition for postconviction relief.  He sought to withdraw his plea on the grounds that it was not voluntary and intelligent because he was not informed his sentence could include a conditional release term.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that any failure to inform defendant of the potential for a conditional release term was not ripe, and, did not invalidate his plea.

State v. Dean, A18-1514, Hennepin County.

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

Probation Violation

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Probation violation held intentional or inexcusable by Anoka County District Court

Defendant was alleged to have violated his probation.  The Anoka County District Court found that defendant intentionally or inexcusably violated the conditions of his probation, and, that the need for confinement outweighed the policies favoring probation.  Indeed, this is the correct legal standard.  On appeal, the defendant argued that the evidence was not sufficient to support the conclusions of the trial court.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the record amply supported the trial court’s determination that defendant both intentionally and inexcusably violated the condition that he complete domestic abuse programming as directed by probation.

State v. Pedersen, A19-1075, Anoka County.

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

Minnesota Second Amendment Lawyer Lynne Torgerson wins gun rights restoration in St. Louis County

Minnesota Second Amendment Attorney Lynne Torgerson wins gun rights restoration in St. Louis County – Virginia

Minnesota Gun Rights Restoration Lawyer Lynne Torgerson won a gun rights restoration case in the County of St. Louis, City of Virginia, State of Minnesota.  Ms. Torgerson’s client, the Petitioner, was now 41 years old, married for 10 years with 2 children.  Petitioner owned his own home.  He had graduated from the Minnesota School of Business with a B.A. in Information Technology.  He had obtained a solid position with a very large employer in his career field.  He had become a hockey coach.  He no longer consumed alcohol, and had stopped about 15 years earlier.  He had good experiences with firearms as a child.  He now wished to get his Second Amendment rights restored, to hunt, to teach his son to hunt, go to the gun range with his Father, and go hunting and shooting with his brother in law.  He had remained law abiding for about 20 years, with a not insignificant criminal history earlier than that, which included burglary, felony thefts, felony DWI.  He then turned his life around and became a productive, law abiding citizen.  Finding good cause, the Honorable Gary J. Pagliaccetti restored Ms. Torgerson’s client’s rights to possess firearms.  Well done Ms. Torgerson.

Child pornography

Child pornography sentence

Defendant was convicted of child pornography.  The trial court imposed three (3) separate sentences for his child pornography convictions.  Defendant argued that the trial court erred in imposing three (3) separate sentences because the State failed to demonstrate that the offenses were committed as separate behavioral incidents or that they involved three (3) different victims.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed and held that the trial court erred by concluding that the crimes involved separate behavioral incidents or that the crimes involved three (3) different victims.  Reversed and remanded.

State v. Kohlwey, A18-1253, Dakota County.

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

Ineligible person in possession of a firearm

Was search warrant affidavit based on stale information?

Defendant was convicted of ineligible person in possession of a firearm in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota.  On appeal, he argued that the information in the application for a search warrant was stale.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals noted that because a tip asserted that defendant was selling large quantities of narcotics, and, a search of garbage that produced evidence that field tested positive for cocaine was done 1 day before the search warrant was issued, the information supporting the search warrant was not stale.  Affirmed.

State v. Williams, A18-1432, Hennepin County.

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

Solicitation of child for sexual conduct

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Defendant’s conviction for solicitation of a child to engage in sexual conduct was supported by sufficient evidence.

Defendant was convicted of solicitation of a child to engaged in sexual conduct.  Defendant argued the evidence was insufficient.  The victim testified that she said her age was 13.  Defendant stated that he was 17 years old.  He asked if they could hang out.  He asked her if she had ever given head, would she ever give head, would she ever give him head, and if she had ever f . . . d a black guy.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that defendant’s guilt could be inferred from his words.  Affirmed.

State v. Abdirahman, A18-1296, Carver County.

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

Stalking

Was right to speedy trial denied in stalking trial?

Defendant was convicted by a jury trial of stalking and domestic assault.  On appeal, defendant argued that his constitutional right to a speedy trial had been violated.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that most of the delay between defendant’s arrest and trial was attributable to him, that he was amenable to two continuances, and discredited him claims of anxiety, whereby his right to a speedy trial was not violated. Affirmed.

State v. Riddle, A19-0222, Ramsey County.

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

Expungement in Anoka County

Defendant’s request to waive filing fee for expungement of petty misdemeanor seatbelt violation denied

Defendant sought expungement of a petty misdemeanor seatbelt violation case.  Defendant requested that the requirement to pay a filing fee be waived.  His request to waive the filing fee was denied.  The trial court based its decision on the indigency, in forma pauperis statute.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the determination of whether to waive a filing fee in an expungement case is determined by the expungement statute, not the indigency statute.

State v. Scheffler, A19-1310, Anoka County.

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

Controlled substance crime methamphetamine

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Improper Spriegl evidence reverses conviction in Hennepin County

Defendant was convicted of controlled substance crime involving possession of methamphetamine.  On appeal, defendant argued that the State had introduced improper Spriegl evidence that defendant had committed a prior robbery in relation to a deal involving a substantial amount of drugs.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals held this was plain error affecting defendant’s substantial rights.  Defendant’s conviction reversed.

State v. Bartel, A19-0022, Hennepin County.

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

Second Amendment Lawyer Lynne Torgerson wins gun rights restoration in Ramsey County

Second Amendment Attorney Lynne Torgerson wins gun rights restoration case in Ramsey County

Gun Rights Restoration Lawyer Lynne Torgerson won restoration of rights to possess firearms in the County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota.  Ms. Torgerson’s client, some 22 years earlier in 1998, was convicted of felony threats of violence which arose out of a road rage incident.  This was a disqualifying case.  He received a stay of imposition of sentence whereby the conviction is now deemed a misdemeanor as a matter of law.  Ms. Torgerson’s client is now 68 years old, had been married 43 years, and he and his wife had resided in the home they own for 30 years.  He was a high school and college graduate.  Now retired, his last employment was a fuel delivery driver.  He had completed treatment and had not consumed alcohol in 27 years.  He also does not use illegal drugs.  He now wished to inherit firearms, and visit the shooting range.  The court, The Honorable Thomas Gilligan presiding, granted Ms. Torgerson’s client’s request.  Well done Ms. Torgerson.

Fifth 5th degree assault

In 5th degree misdemeanor assault trial victim allowed to testify as to facts regarding prior convictions

Defendant was convicted of 5th degree misdemeanor assault in the County of Mower, State of Minnesota.  Defendant appealed on the grounds that (1) the victim should not have been allowed to testify as to the facts of victim’s prior convictions, and (2) defendant’s cross examination of victim regarding same was limited.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals found no error, and no plain error in the State’s questioning of victim about his prior convictions, given that defendant had stated his intent to cross examine victim on same.  Affirmed.

State v. Karnes, A19-0504, Mower County.

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

Areas of Law

Ms. Torgerson can represent you and your loved one, on the following charges:

appeals, assault, aggravated assault, aggravated robbery, arson, burglary, carry and conceal, check forgery, child pornography, controlled substance crimes, credit card fraud, criminal sexual conduct, criminal vehicular operation, disorderly conduct, domestic abuse, domestic assault, domestic abuse no contact orders, drug charges, DWI/DUI, criminal sexual conduct, detox release, driving after suspension / revocation / cancellation, drivers license issues, electronic communications with a minor child, embezzlement, expungements, failure to register, false imprisonment, fleeing the police, forfeitures, forgery, fraud, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, gun charges, gun rights restoration, habeas corpus, harassment, harassment restraining order violations, homicide, identity theft, indecent exposure, juvenile crimes, kidnapping, manslaughter, murder, obstructing legal process, orders for protection, parole violations, pornography, postconviction relief petitions, probation violations, prostitution, restraining orders, Second Amendment, sexual assault, sex crimes, shoplifting, solicitation of prostitution, terroristic threats, theft, theft by swindle, threats of violence, violation of orders for protection, weapons offenses, white collar crimes, and all other misdemeanors, gross misdemeanors and felonies.