Success/Results2020-07-22T19:39:46+00:00

False Information to Police Officer

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Giving a police officer a true partial name constitutes crime of false information to police officer 

Defendant was convicted of giving a fictitious name to a peace officer in violation of Minnesota Statute §609.506, subdivision 1.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals confirmed defendant’s conviction.  Defendant argued that because he gave police a name that was part of his full name, the evidence was insufficient to prove his gave a fictitious name.  The Minnesota Supreme Court held that (1) a fictitious name for purposes of §609.506, subdivision 1 includes names that uses only parts of a full legal name; and (2) because the State proved that defendant gave police a partial name with intent to obstruct the police investigation, the State presented sufficient evidence to support defendant’s conviction.

State v. Thompson, A19-0253, Minnesota Supreme Court.

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

Search Warrant Not Signed

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Failure to produce a signed search warrant invalidates search 

Defendant was stopped for DWI.  The police stated that they obtained a search warrant for a blood draw.  Defendant brought a motion to suppress the results of the test on the grounds that the State failed to produce a signed search warrant.  Officers testified that they obtained a search warrant signed by a judge.  The trial court denied defendant’s motion.  Defendant appealed.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed on the grounds that the officers’ testimony was not sufficient and the State failed to produce a signed copy of the search warrant.

State v. Skaudis, A19-1741, St. Louis County.

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

1st Amendment Speech

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Defendant’s Twitter tweets that threatened United States Senator were not protected as 1st Amendment speech 

Defendant tweeted tweets on Twitter that involved threats to a United States Senator.  He was criminally prosecuted in federal court for transmitting a threatening communication in interstate commerce.  Defendant’s tweets had no apparent political messaging and clearly expressed a desire to inflict physical harm.  They therefore had no First Amendment protection for his communications.  Conviction sustained.

United States v. Dierks, 18-2374, Appealed from United States District Court, Northern District of Iowa, Kobes, J.

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

Possession of Firearms Disqualification

Removal of crime of violence designation makes person legal to possess firearms 

In 1998, Petitioner was adjudicated of felony theft of a motor vehicle, which at that time was designated as a felony crime of violence.  In 2014, the Minnesota Legislature eliminated felony theft of a motor vehicle from the list of crimes which constitute a felony crime of violence.  In 2017, Petitioner applied for a permit to carry.  The Sheriff concluded that Petitioner had a lifetime bar on possession of firearms because of this 1998 adjudication of felony theft of a motor vehicle.  The trial court, and Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed.  The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed.  The Minnesota Supreme Court held that the law in effect at the time of an application for a permit to carry is what governs, not what the law said in 1998.  Petitioner is now legal to possess and carry firearms.

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

Tapia v. Leslie, A19-0627, Minnesota Supreme Court.

Drug Conspiracy Charges

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Sentencing enhancements in federal drug conspiracy case  

Defendant appealed his sentencing enhancements in his federal drug conspiracy case.  The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that (1) enhancement for acting as a manager was proper because the defendant managed or supervised at least one other participant in the conspiracy; and (2) enhancement was proper based upon defendant knowing that the drugs were imported.

United States v. Felix Aguirre, 19-2332, per curiam.  Appealed from the United States District Court, Western District of Missouri.

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

Drug conspiracy

Sentencing enhancement in federal drug conspiracy case  

Defendant pleaded guilty to drug conspiracy.  The District Court sentenced defendant to a 4 level enhancement.  The enhancement was  for defendant’s leadership role, since defendant’s acts showed his significant authority and high level participation in the operation.  Defendant also attempted to impeded prosecution of his girlfriend, justifying enhancement for obstruction of justice.  Further, the sentence was substantively reasonable.  Affirmed.

United States v. Zambrano, 19-1781, Smith, J.  Appealed from the United States District court, Western District of Arkansas.

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

Freedom of speech

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether the grand jury secrecy law did not violate grand juror’s 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech?  

A grand juror challenged the dismissal of her action seeking a declaration and injunction on the basis that the State’s secrecy laws for grand juries were na unconstitutional abridgment of free speech as applied to her.  The grand juror failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted since the law survived strict scrutiny, and, the release of evidence and information related to the proceedings in the specific case did not change the analysis.  Judgment affirmed.

Doe v. Bell, 19-1436, Gruender, J.  Appealed from the United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri.

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

Conspiracy to distribute heroin

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the sentencing enhancements?  

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to distribute a mixture containing heroin.  The government proved sentencing enhancements by a preponderance of the evidence.  The district court then varied downward from the advisory guidelines range and sentenced defendant to 158 months in prison, with 5 years supervised release.  On appeal, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals found sufficient evidence of a spatial and temporal relationship between the seized drugs and firearms, and, that defendant had been using a residence to manufacture and distribute drugs.  Hence, the sentencing enhancements were not erroneous.  Affirmed.

United States v. Brumley, 19-2144, per curiam.  Appealed from the United States District Court, District of Minnesota.

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

Speedy Trial

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether defendant’s right to a speedy trial was not violated?  

Defendant was convicted of domestic assault and disorderly conduct.  Defendant appealed, arguing that his right to a speedy trial was violated.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that defendant’s right to a speedy trial was not violated because:  (1) the trial only exceeded the speedy trial window by 30 days; (2) the defendant’s single demand for a speedy trial followed the defendant causing a total delay of more than 180 days between charging and the first scheduled trial date; (3) neither the State nor the court were to blame for the delay; (4) the defendant had previously waived his right to a speedy trial; and (5) the defendant suffered no prejudice as a result.  Affirmed.

State v. Wyatt, A19-1465, Dakota County.

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

Accomplice Testimony

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether an accomplice’s testimony must be corroborated?  

Defendant was convicted of aiding and abetting 1st and 2nd degree murder.  Defendant appealed.  The Minnesota Supreme Court held that:  (1) because the jury could have reasonably concluded that a testifying witness was defendant’s accomplice, and testimony given under oath in a court proceeding and admitted at trial as substantive evidence of defendant’s guilt was “testimony” under Minn. Stat. §634.04, the trial court erred by failing to given an accomplice corroboration instruction to the jury.  However, the error did not affect defendant’s substantial rights.  Affirmed.

State v. Davenport, A19-0358, St. Louis County.

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

Probation Violation

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether the policies favoring probation were outweighed by the need for confinement?  

Defendant was convicted of 1st degree criminal sexual conduct.  His probation was revoked and his prison sentence was executed.  Defendant appealed.  On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion by finding that the need for confinement outweighed the policies favoring probation.  This was defendant’s fourth probation violation, and all of his violations involved the use of methamphetamine.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the record supported that trial court’s determination that the need for confinement outweighed the policies favoring probation.

State v. Case, A19-2028, Wright County.

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

Probation Violation

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether defendant was entitled to a new probation violation hearing because the judge acted like a prosecutor?  

Defendant’s felony probation was revoked in the County of Cass, State of Minnesota.  On appeal, defendant challenged the revocation of his probation arguing that the trial court failed to provide an impartial judicial officer at his probation revocation proceedings.  Noting that the trial court judge here essentially acted as a de factor prosecutor, calling a witness and eliciting testimony to prove an alleged probation violation, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new probation revocation hearing before a difference judicial officer.

State v. Headbird, A10-0030, Cass County.

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

By |August 10th, 2020|Categories: Victories/Case Law Updates|0 Comments

DWI/DUI

CASE LAW UPDATE:  DWI/DUI conviction upheld because traffic stop was supported by reasonable suspicion  

Defendant was convicted of driving while impaired (DWI).  On appeal, defendant argued that the traffic stop was not supported by a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that the trooper’s suspicion that defendant had violated a traffic statute by parking on the highway was reasonable.  Affirmed.

State v. Huhnerkoch, A19-1981, Redwood County.

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

Felony Domestic Assault

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether the court’s error in jury instructions did not affect the verdict?  

Defendant was convicted of felony domestic assault.  Defendant appealed.  On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court committed reversible error when defining the crime in its jury instructions when it referred to an attempt, and this was a completed crime.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that, because this case involved a completed assault, there was no reasonable likelihood that the trial court’s error in using the word “attempt,” in  the jury instruction significantly affected the jury’s verdict.  Affirmed.

State v. Slaughter-McCaskel, A19-1571, Anoka County.

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

Motion to Withdraw Plea

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether defendant’s motion to withdraw plea should be denied because it was accurate?  

Defendant pleaded guilty to 3 counts of 1st degree aggravated robbery.  Subsequently, defendant brought a motion to withdraw his pleas on the grounds that his guilty pleas were invalid because they were inaccurate.  Defendant argued that there was no factual basis of him personally taking personal property, suing or threatening to use force, or being armed with a dangerous weapon.  The State responded that this argument lacked merit because a person who aids and abets a crime is as guilty as a principal offender.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals agreed with the State, holding that a factual basis that establishes that the defendant is guilty of aiding and abetting a robbery is sufficient to sustain an conviction for aggravated robbery.  Affirmed.

State v. Washington, A19-1218, Dakota County.

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

Felon in Possession of a Firearm

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether defendant’s 2005 Wisconsin felony controlled substance crime conviction constitutes a crime of violence under Minn. Stat. §624.712, subd. 5?  

Defendant was convicted of felon in possession of a firearm pursuant to her guilty plea.  Defendant moved to withdraw her guilty plea on the grounds that it was invalid, alleging that her 2005 Wisconsin controlled substance crime does not qualify as a crime of violence under Minn. Stat. §624.712, subd. 5.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the plain language of Minn. Stat. §624.713, subd 1(2) criminalizes possession of a firearm by a person adjudicated delinquent of a crime of violence in another State, and, a Wisconsin controlled substance crime is a crime of violence under Minnesota law.  Affirmed.

State v. Gray, A19-0819, Clay County.

Minnesota Gun Rights Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Expungements

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether defendant needed to bring a petition for post conviction relief rather than expungement?  

Defendant was convicted of felony offering a forged check.  He sought expungement of same.  Defendant argued that because he did not have a prior qualifying offense, he should not have been convicted under Minn. Stat. §609.631, subd. 4(3)(b), and that statutory expungement was not available for that offense, but would be for the proper offense.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that expungement was not proper, because such a collateral attack was not proper.  Affirmed.

State v. JLL, A19-1765, Dakota County.

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

Habeas Corpus

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether defendant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus was properly denied because denial of participation in early release program was not unconstitutional?  

Defendant was convicted and sentenced to prison.  While in prison, defendant sought to participate in an early release program.  The Minnesota Department of Corrections denied his request to participate in the early release program.  Defendant was a petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that the denial violated his due process rights and equal protection rights.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals found no constitutional violation.  Affirmed.

Roybal v. Schnell, A20-0314, Crow Wing County.

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

Abet Criminal Sexual Conduct

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether the accomplice testimony was sufficiently corroborated to support conviction of aiding and abetting 1st degree criminal sexual conduct?  

Defendant was convicted of two (2) counts of aiding and abetting 1st degree criminal sexual conduct following a stipulated evidence trial.  Defendant appealed.  On appeal, defendant argued that his convictions must be reversed because the evidence was insufficient to corroborate accomplice testimony introduced at trial.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that the evidence was sufficient to corroborate the accomplice testimony because it indicated that defendant was present and associated with the persons involved in the crimes in such a way as to suggest his participation.  Affirmed.

State v. Harper, A19-1271, Hennepin County.

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

Juvenile Charges

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether it was proper to certify defendant’s criminal sexual conduct case to adult court? 

Defendant challenged his certification to stand trial as an adult for sexual misconduct he committed between the ages of 18 and 18.  Defendant was alleged to have sexually abused his cousin about 10 time beginning when she was 6 years old.  The Minnesota Court of appeals concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that clear and convincing evidence supported certification, noting that it was undisputed that defendant had significant mental health issues and needed sex offender treatment.  Affirmed.

In re WPB, A20-0018, Crow Wing County.

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

Coercion

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether the coercion statute must be struck down as unconstitutional? 

Defendant was charged with coercion under Minn. Stat. §609.27.   Defendant had threatened to expose his ex-girlfriend’s secret of smoking marijuana to authorities, and demanded payment of $25,000.00 to forego doing so.  The defendant moved to strike down the coercion statute as unconstitutional on its face under the First Amendment.  The trial court, and the Minnesota Court of Appeals, held that subdivision 1(4) of Minnesota Statute 609.27 was unconstitutionally overbroad and could not be saved through a narrowing construction, nor by severing part of it.

The Minnesota Supreme held that on its face, Minn. Stat. §609.27, subd. 1(4), which prohibits any written or oral “threat to expose a secret or deformity, publish a defamatory statement, or otherwise to expose any person to disgrace or ridicule,” violated that First Amendment because it criminalizes a substantial amount of protected speech and cannot be saved by a narrowing construction or severance.  Affirmed.

State v. Jorgenson, A19-0323.

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

Carry DWI

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether in a car on a highway constitutes carrying in a public place?

Defendant was charged with carrying a pistol under the influence in a public place.  The trial court, Renville County District Court, dismissed the case for lack of probable cause.  The trial court concluded that having a pistol located in the center console of the personal vehicle of defendant while operating on a public highway did not constitute a public place.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that a motor vehicle traveling on a public highway is in a public place for purposes of the crime of carrying a pistol in a public place while under the influence of alcohol.

State v. Serbus, A19-1921, Renville County.

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

Marital Privilege

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether defendant’s convictions must be reversed because wife was erroneously permitted to testify against her husband?

Defendant was convicted of 2nd degree arson and conspiracy to commit insurance fraud.  At trial, his wife testified against him.  Defendant appealed.  On appeal, defendant argued that his convictions must be reversed because his wife was incompetent to testify against him based on the marital privilege.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that allowing wife’s testimony was plain error, and that the testimony affected defendant’s substantial rights as it elicited the financial motivation that bolstered the State’s theory and was highlighted throughout trial.  Reversed and remanded.

State v. Gill, A19-1173, Redwood County.

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

Criminal Sexual Conduct

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether the trial court’s sentence of 234 months in prison using Hernandize method was proper?

Defendant was convicted of three (3) counts of criminal sexual conduct in the Anoka County District Court.  The trial court, using the Hernandize method, sentenced defendant to 234 months in prison on the third conviction.  Defendant appealed.  On appeal, defendant argued that the sentence was improperly excessive.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it Hernandized defendant’s convictions and imposed a 234 month prison sentence for his third conviction.  Affirmed.

Patchen v. State, A19-1818, Anoka County.

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

Criminal Sexual Conduct

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether the evidence did establish attempted 3rd degree criminal sexual conduct?

Defendant was convicted of attempted third degree criminal sexual conduct.  On appeal, defendant argued that the State failed to prove that he committed an act that was “a substantial step toward, and more than preparation for” the commission of 3rd degree criminal sexual conduct.  A divided panel of the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed defendant’s conviction.

The Minnesota Supreme Court held that the evidence of defendant’s communications with a decoy online profile of a 14 year old boy, combined with his arrival at the decoy’s purported home at his direction, did present sufficient evidence to prove that defendant committed an act that was a “substantial step toward, and more than preparation for” the commission of 3rd degree criminal sexual conduct, thus meeting the requirement of the attempt statute, Minn. Stat. §609.17.  Affirmed.

State v. Wilkie, A18-0288, Minnesota Supreme Court (seminal case).

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

Child Pornography

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Was the 97 month prison sentence appropriate in child pornography case?

Defendant was convicted in a child pornography case.  The District Court sentenced defendant to 97 months in prison.  Defendant appealed.  On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence.  The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld defendant’s sentence for child pornography on the grounds that (1) defendant showed child pornography to the victim of his sexual assault; and (2) the sentence was not substantively unreasonable.  Affirmed.

United States v. Bruno, 19-1766, per curiam.  Appealed from the United States District Court, Southern District of Iowa.

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

DWI / DUI

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether the prior Wisconsin drivers license revocation could be used for enhancement?

Defendant was charged with four (4) counts of 3rd degree gross misdmeanor DWI.  These were enhanced because of a prior Wisconsin alcohol related drivers license revocation.  The trial court dismissed the gross misdemeanor charges on the grounds that the Wisconsin revocation could not be used for purposes of enhancement because the defendant was not represented by an attorney.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the trial court holding that the prior Wisconsin DL revocation was a proper basis for enhancement, regardless of whether defendant was represented by counsel.

State v. Jones, A20-0161, Hennepin County.

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

Commentary:  This is an unfair decision.  Wisconsin has non-criminal penalties for 1st time DWIs.  They should not be used for purposes of enhancement.

Probation Revocation

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether the need for confinement outweighed the policies favoring probation?

Defendant’s probation was revoked.  Defendant appealed.  On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his probation because this was his first violation, community based treatment had not even been attempted, and, his probation officer recommended reinstatement.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld the revocation of defendant’s probation on the grounds that the need for confinement outweighed the policies favoring probation.  Affirmed.

State v. Vandekleft, A19-1837, Nobles County.

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

1st degree criminal sexual conduct

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether a lifetime term of conditional release was not authorized because defendant’s convictions were entered simultaneously and he had no prior conviction? 

Defendant was convicted of 1st and 2nd degree criminal sexual conduct.  The trial court sentenced defendant to a lifetime term of conditional release.  Defendant appealed the lifetime term of conditional release arguing error because he did not have a prior sex offense conviction and his convictions were entered simultaneously in the same proceeding.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in imposing a lifetime term of conditional release because the convictions were simultaneous and he had no prior sex offense conviction.  Reversed.

State v. Rosendo Dominguez, A19-0869, Hennepin County.

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

Felon in Possession of Firearm

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether a juvenile adjudication of a felony crime of violence constitutes a felony crime of violence conviction?

Defendant was convicted of felon in possession of a firearm because of a juvenile adjudication of a felony crime of violence.  Defendant appealed.  Defendant argued that the trial court erred in interpreting “felony conviction” as used in the statute to included juvenile delinquency adjudications.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the definition of crime of violence contained in Minn. Stat. §624.712, subd. includes juvenile adjudications of felony crimes of violence.  Affirmed.

State v. Hines, A19-1390, Hennepin County.

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

Withdraw Plea

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether it was not error to deny defendant’s petition for postconviction relief?

Defendant pleaded guilty to fifth degree possession of a controlled substance in the County of Clay, State of Minnesota.  Subsequently, he brought a petition for postconviction relief, seeking to withdraw his plea of guilty.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld the denial of defendant’s petition for postconviction relief.  The Court noted that despite his contention that  a friend left the pill in his car, it was still reasonable to infer that he constructively possess it under the circumstances, whereby the trial court did not err by holding that defendant’s plea was accurate.

Eberhart v. State, A19-1769, Clay County.

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

Probation Violation Attorney

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether defendant was entitled to a new probation violation hearing because the judge acted like a prosecutor? 

Defendant’s felony probation was revoked in the County of Cass, State of Minnesota.  On appeal, defendant challenged the revocation of his probation arguing that the trial court failed to provide an impartial judicial officer at his probation revocation proceedings.  Noting that the trial court judge here essentially acted as a de factor prosecutor, calling a witness and eliciting testimony to prove an alleged probation violation, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new probation revocation hearing before a difference judicial officer.

State v. Headbird, A10-0030, Cass County.

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

Drug Charges

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether reduction of a defendant’s sentence for drug possession in federal court was not justified under the First Step Act?

Defendant was convicted in federal court of drug possession.  Defendant sought reduction of his sentence under the First Step Act, which was denied.  Defendant appealed.  The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld denial of sentence reduction under the First Step Act on the grounds of quantity of drugs, obstruction of justice, and the use of a firearm.  Affirmed.

United States v. Moore, 19-3187, Benton, J.  Appealed from the United States District Court, District of Nebraska.

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

Identity Theft

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether incriminating, but lawful prior conduct, is not inadmissible Spreigl evidence?

Defendant was convicted of identity theft, in the County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota.  Defendant appealed.  Defendant argued that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of a bad act occurring after the charged offense.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals noted that under Minnesota law, the use or possession of a scanning or re-encoder device that can re-encode magnetic strips on credit cards is unlawful only wen couple with the intent to commit, aid, or abet unlawful activity, defendant possession of the encoder did not constitute Spreigl evidence.  Affirmed.

State v. Abdirahaman, A19-1091, Ramsey County.

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

Gun Rights Restoration Lawyer

Minnesota Second Amendment Lawyer Lynne Torgerson wins gun rights restoration in the County of Rice, State of Minnesota

Minnesota Second Amendment Attorney Lynne Torgerson won a petition to restore rights to possess firearms in the County of Rice, State of Minnesota.  Ms. Torgerson’s client was now 50 years old.  He was a high school graduate.  He was a college graduate.  He had been employed on a long term basis, 20 years, as a Senior Draftsman.  He had one (1) serious offense approximately twenty two (22) years earlier.  He was discharged from parole in 1993.  He wanted to be able to go hunting again.  Finding good cause, The Honorable John T. Cajacob granted Ms. Torgerson’s client’s request.  Well done Ms. Torgerson.

Corona Virus Update March 25, 2020

Update on Corona Virus

In regard to the corona virus related issues, this office is fully open and fully operational. I have been recognized as an essential worker in the Governor’s Executive Order. My work and cases are not affected, other than the courts appear to be slowing down. I also plan to do more Intakes via telephone conference, rather than in my office downtown Minneapolis.

Because my work involves protecting very important liberties and Constitutional Rights, and because I am a Criminal Defense Lawyer in criminal cases, and because citizens have a right to representation in criminal cases, which is guaranteed by the 6th Amendment to the United States Constitution, and, because a lot of work is done remotely, everything can easily proceed normally.

 

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.