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

Constructive Possession of Firearm

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether defendant was guilty of felon in possession of a firearm because he constructively possessed a firearm?   

Defendant was convicted of aiding and abetting felon in possession of a firearm.  He appealed his conviction.  The evidence showed that defendant constructively possessed a handgun and was in joint constructive possession of three (3) other handguns, and that he knew he was a member of the class prohibited for possessing the weapons.  Therefore, the conviction is affirmed.

United States v. Brooks-Davis, 19-2876.  Loken, J.  Appealed the the United States District Court, District of Minnesota.

Minnesota Firearms Charges Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Minnesota Drug Charges Lawyer

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether the evidence of defendant’s identity in his 3rd degree drug possession case was sufficient?   

Defendant was convicted of 3rd degree drug possession.  He appealed.  On appeal, he argued that the evidence was insufficient to identify him as the perpetrator of the crime of 3rd degree drug possession.  noting that one officer testified that he recognized defendant because he had law enforcement contacts with him many times, and, that another testified that he recognized defendant because he had met him about 10 times in his professional capacity, the Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that evidence as to identity was sufficient.

State v. Niesen, A20-0291, Hennepin County.

Minnesota Drug Charges Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Minnesota Probation Violation Lawyer

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

Defendant violated his probation and his probation was revoked.  He was on probation for a conviction of third degree criminal sexual conduct.  He appealed.  He argued that the record does not support the trial court’s finding that the need for confinement outweighed the policies favoring probation.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals noted that the seriousness of defendant’s probation violations had escalated, and, that probation was therefore not effective.  It further concluded that not revoking probation would unduly depreciate the seriousness of defendant’s violations.  Affirmed.

State v. Potter, A20-0671, Redwood County.

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

Minnesota Second Amendment Lawyer

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

Minnesota Gun Rights Restoration Lawyer Lynne Torgerson has won another gun rights restoration case, this time out of Carlton County.  Petitioner in this case had two (2) very serious cases as a juvenile, which resulted in him losing his gun rights for life.  He was raised in an abusive home.  Petitioner was now in his 30s, had not had a criminal conviction as an adult, now approximately 17 years, was a home owner, and was gainfully employed.   At the hearing, he also expressed remorse for how he had hurt people in his offenses.  The Honorable Judge Stumme presiding, she approvingly recognized how Petitioner had managed to take himself out of the criminal milieu and make something of his life, something that few such juveniles are able to achieve.  Judge Stumme stated on the record, “Thank you for this gift.”  Petitioner was very touched by the Judge’s words.  There was not a dry eye in the house.  The Court granted Petitioner’s request to restore his Second Amendment rights to possess firearms.  Well done Ms. Torgerson.

Failure to Register

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether defendant’s conviction for failure to register must be reversed?   

Defendant challenged his conviction for failing to register as a predatory offender.  Based upon controlling precedent, the Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that defendant did not establish a violation of his procedural due process rights under the stigma plus doctrine.  Affirmed.

State v. Stewart, A20-0488, Otter Tail County.

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

Domestic Assault

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Was the evidence sufficient to support the conviction for domestic assault-fear conviction?   

Defendant was convicted of domestic assault-fear.  The elements of domestic assault fear are doing an act with intent to cause in another of immediate bodily harm or death.  Defendant appealed.  On appeal, defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient on the grounds that he intended a contingent threat.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that the evidence that defendant made a threat to “get somebody right now to come kill” the victim was sufficient to support the conviction.  Affirmed.

State v. Cregg, A20-0047, Hennepin County.

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

Homicide and Murder Charges

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying $6300 for expert services and only granting $1200?   

Defendant Police Officer Kueng, one of the police officer defendants in the George Floyd murder case, requested $6300 for expert services related to a motion to change venue due to excessive pretrial publicity.  Defendant Kueng evidently has been found indigent.  However, it appears that his counsel is privately retained, and not a public defender.  The trial court granted $1200 for expert services, but denied the $6300.  What is interesting in this case is that in the not too distant past, the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that for defendants who retained private counsel, they could never get assistance with expert services.  And, counsel in this case appears to be privately retained.  So, it appears that this issue has been muddied:  whether defendants who have retained private counsel may seek assistance with expert witness fees?

State v. Kueng, A20-1225, Hennepin County.

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

Theft

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether the trial court did not err in ordering $4000 in restitution?   

Defendant was convicted of receiving stolen property after stealing his employer’s vehicles.  The trial court ordered him to pay $4,000.00 in restitution.  Defendant challenged that order arguing that (1) the State failed to establish the restitution value by a preponderance of the evidence and (2) the trial court erred because it based its restitution order on an affidavit submitted by the victim and supporting hearsay documents among other errors.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the value was supported by the record and no error.

State v. Krithers, A19-1234, St. Louis County.

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

2nd Degree Felony Assault

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether the trial court erred in excluding defendant’s medical opinion expert?   

Defendant was convicted of 2nd degree felony assault.  On appeal, he argued that the trial court prejudicially erred in excluding medical opinion testimony on the cause of defendant’s injury, which he proffered to support his self defense claim.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that defendant violated a discovery rule by failing to disclose the medical opinion testimony before trial.  Further, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt on the grounds that even if the medical opinion was admitted, it would not have changed the jury’s verdict.  Affirmed.

State v. Silva, A19-1768, Dakota County.

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

Fifth Amendment Right to Remain Silent

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether defendant’s constitutionally required 5th Amendment right to remain silent was violated at his jury trial?   

Defendant was convicted of 2 counts of 2nd degree criminal sexual conduct.  On appeal, defendant contended that the trial court erred by failing to grant a mistrial after a detective witness testified that defendant declined, post Miranda, to talk to investigators in violation of defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that the detective’s disclosure to the jury that defendant had exercise his right to remain silent constituted an error, but held in was harmless error, claiming it was a lone statement in voluminous proceedings, and, a curative instruction was given.

State v. Rundles, A19-1601, Dakota County.

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

COMMENTARY:  With all due respect, this decision needs to be reversed by the Minnesota Supreme Court.  There cannot be “harmless error” in these circumstances.  What does the 5th Amendment require?  That if you invoke your constitutional right to remain silent, your silence CANNOT be used against you in a court of law.  The 5th Amendment requires that no one, including the judge, prosecutor and witnesses, CANNOT comments on the invocation of a constitutional right.  This case is manifestly unconstitutional, and needs to be reversed.  We cannot allow bad facts to destroy our constitution.

Minnesota Second Amendment Lawyer

Minnesota Gun Rights Restoration Lawyer Lynne Torgerson wins gun rights restoration out of Kanabec County   

Minnesota Gun Rights Lawyer Lynne Torgerson won restoration of her client’s Second Amendment rights to possess firearms.  In this case, Ms. Torgerson’s client had no adult criminal conviction.  His disqualification to possess firearms stemmed from a juvenile adjudication.  As a juvenile, he had a criminal damage to property, a second degree felony assault (the disqualifying conviction).  He was about 15 years old, a teenager, at the time of the 2nd degree felony assault.  At the time of the Petition to Restore, he was a Security Guard.  For the past 13 years, he had no criminal conviction(s).  Finding good cause, the Honorable Heather Wynn, granted the gun rights restoration.  Well done Ms. Torgerson.

Child Pornography

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress?   

Defendant was convicted of child pornography.  On appeal, he challenged the denial of his motion to suppress.  The defendant’s friend had seized and searched a USB drive found in defendant’s bathroom.  Lacking State action, the friend’s actions were not subject to the Fourth Amendment, the police chief did not violate the Fourth Amendment by seizing the USB drive before obtaining a warrant.  Additionally, the Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld defendant’s 180 year sentence as substantively reasonable.

United States v. Stephen, 19-1966, Gruender, J. Appealed from the United States District Court, Northern District of Iowa.

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

Minnesota Theft Lawyer

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction for theft?   

Defendant was convicted of shoplifting theft.  The evidence was that he removed several items from a retail store without paying for them.  Defendant contended that he did not commit a crime by temporarily leaving his cart, which contained unpaid for items, near the customer service area and the exit, while he spoke with customer service employees.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction of shoplifting theft, noting that the inference that defendant intended to purchase the unpaid for items in his cart after putting the items he paid for back in his vehicle was not a reasonable inference in light of the evidence that defendant and another who attempted to  leave the store with the cart coordinated a hand off of the cart.

State v. Quaas, A19-2076, Beltrami County.

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

Accomplice Testimony

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether the evidence was sufficient because the accomplice testimony was corroborated?   

Defendant was convicted of drive by shooting and 1st degree assault.  On appeal, defendant argued that (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction on the grounds that the accomplice testimony was uncorroborated; and (2) the trial court abused its discretion by admitting videos of defendant with firearms as Spreigl evidence.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the accomplice testimony was sufficiently corroborated, and, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the videos as Spreigl evidence.  Conviction affirmed.

State v. Jones, A19-1625, Washington County.

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

Probation Violation

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether defendant’s probation violations were intentional or inexcusable?   

Defendant’s probation was revoked.  Defendant appealed.  On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court failed to find that his probation violations were intentional or inexcusable, and, that the record did not support the Court’s finding that the need for confinement outweighed the policies favoring probation.  Noting that defendant admitted that his controlled substance violations were either intentional or inexcusable, and the trial court’s express finding that the Austin factors were satisfied, the Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that the violations were intentional or inexcusable thus supporting the probation revocation.

State v. Jackson, A20-0782, Stearns County.

Minnesota Probation Violation Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Fourth Amendment

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether flipping an officer the middle finger is protected speech?   

Plaintiff flipped off a traffic officer.  Subsequently, he was subjected to a stop.  Later, he sued the officer for alleged 1st and 4th Amendment violations.  The officer raised qualified immunity.  The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that:   (1) the district court erred in granting qualified immunity on the First Amendment retaliation claim, because flipping the middle finger is protected speech.

Garcia v. City of New Hope, 19-1836, Smith J.   Appealed from the United States District Court, District of Minnesota.

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

Child Pornography

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether admission of evidence that defendant posted photos of young female in child pornography case was harmless error?   

Defendant was convicted of possession of child pornography.  On appeal, he argued that the trial court erred in admitting evidence that he posted photos of a young female relative to a website called PrimeJailBait.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that any error was harmless given the ample, properly admitted evidence that defendant knowingly received child pornography.

United States v. Croghan, 18-3709, Smith J.  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.

Minnesota Second Amendment Lawyer

Minnesota Gun Rights Restoration Lawyer Lynne Torgerson wins gun rights restoration in Hennepin County  

Minnesota Gun Rights Lawyer Lynne Torgerson won a gun rights restoration case in the the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, the Honorable Michelle Hatcher presiding.  Ms. Torgerson’s client, in 2005, was convicted of felony 1st degree assault.  The victim wanted the charges dropped.  He received a stay of imposition of sentence, whereby the conviction is now deemed a misdemeanor as a matter of law.  In connection with probation, he completed anger management and chemical dependency programs.  For the subsequent 15 years, he had no further criminal conviction(s).  Ms. Torgerson’s client now wishes to go hunting with his twin sons, and become a firefighter.  Finding good cause, the trial court granted the petition to restore Second Amendment rights to possess firearms.  Well done Ms. Torgerson.

Criminal Sexual Conduct

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether defendant’s 6th Amendment right of confrontation was violated?  

Defendant was convicted of 2nd degree criminal sexual conduct and 5th degree criminal sexual conduct.  On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court deprived him of his 6th Amendment right of confrontation under the United States and Minnesota Constitutions.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that even though defendant was allowed to cross examine the victim before, but not after, the State introduced the victim’s prior statements, his 6th Amendment right of confrontation was not violated.

State v. Leonard, A19-1771, Fillmore County.

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

Carrying a pistol without a permit

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether in this carrying without a permit case the trial court erred in failing to strike a juror sua sponte for bias?  

Defendant was convicted of carrying a pistol without a permit.  Defendant appealed.  On appeal, he argued that he was entitled to a new trial on the grounds that the trial court erred by failing to strike a juror sua sponte for bias.  Because defendant failed to bring a for cause challenge to the juror in the trial court, the Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that the question of whether the trial court erred by failing to strike the juror sua sponte was not properly before it.  Affirmed.

State v. Collins, A19-1277, Hennepin County.

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

Felony Domestic Assault

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether the 911 call was admissible as an excited utterance?  

Defendant was convicted of felony domestic assault and 2nd degree assault.  On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion by (1) admitting a 911 call at trial as an excited utterance over hearsay and foundation objections.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that, because the victim’s 911 call statements were cumulative of and corroborated properly admitted evidence, even if were admitted erroneously, their admission had no reasonable possibility of significantly affecting the verdict and therefore would be harmless error.

State v. Northrup, A19-1806, St. Louis County.

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

Probation Revocation

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether the trial court erred in revoking defendant’s probation and executing his prison sentence?  

The trial court revoked defendant’s sentence and executed his prison sentence.  Defendant appealed.  Defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion because it did not find, and the record did not show, that the need for confinement outweighed the policies favoring probation.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded there was no abuse of discretion, noting that the record revealed that the trial court carefully applied Austin, and Modtland in revoking defendant’s probation.  Affirmed.

State v. Anderson-Larscheid, A20-0376, Rice County.

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

Criminal Sexual Conduct

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether the evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s convictions of 1st degree criminal sexual conduct?  

On appeal, defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions of (1) 1st degree criminal sexual conduct on the grounds that defendant used force or coercion to accomplish the penetration; and (2) 1st degree criminal sexual conduct on the grounds that the victim was physically helpless.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that because the infliction of bodily harm is itself force as defined by the statute, the jury was not required to find that infliction of bodily harm caused the victim to submit to penetration, thus affirming the force based conviction.  However, the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the physically helpless conviction had to be vacated on the grounds that the trial court erroneously adjudicated multiple convictions on the basis of the same act or course of conduct.

State v. Bingham, A20-0318, Olmsted County.

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

Identity Theft

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether the evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s conviction for identity theft?  

On appeal defendant challenged the sufficient of the evidence for the convictions of identity theft involving more than 3 victims and for possession of a credit card reencoding device.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld defendant convictions noting that:  (1) defendant engaged in multiple fraudulent transactions at or near the airport in the weeks preceding the disputed transaction; (2) defendant had a prior association with the principal who used the 4th victim’s credit card; (3) defendant traveled with the principal and another associate on that same date; (4) the principal used a fraudulent credit card to purchase a laptop for defendant as well as other items for their mail associate; and (5) defendant and his associates agreed to a payment arrangement for online purchases.  Affirmed.

State v. Abdirahman, A20-0070, Hennepin 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 out of Morrison County, State of Minnesota  

Minnesota Gun Rights Restoration Lawyer Lynne Torgerson won the restoration of her client’s gun rights out of the County of Morrison, State of Minnesota, The Honorable Douglas P. Anderson presiding.  Petitioner had two (2) disqualifying convictions, which were approximately nine (9) years old.  He now wished to go hunting.   Finding good cause, the Petition to restore gun rights was granted.  Well done Ms. Torgerson.

Perjury

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s perjury conviction?  

Defendant was convicted of perjury.  He appealed.  At trial, the notary testified that he did not administer an oath.  His testimony was uncontradicted.  Defendant’s conviction was based on a notarized affidavit he filed in litigation brought against him by a group of tenants.  On appeal, defendant argued that the evidence could not support a finding that he was under oath.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that the jury had ample reason to doubt the notary’s testimony, and, that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s determination that defendant was under oath when he knowingly made false material statements in his affidavit.  Affirmed.

State v. Frenz, A20-0385, Hennepin County.

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

1st degree felony assault

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction of 1st degree felony assault?  

Defendant was convicted of 1st degree felony assault and aggravated robbery.  The evidence was that defendant and an accomplice assaulted a pedestrian by stabbing, punching, and kicking him, and stealing his wallet.  The victim suffered extensive injuries with permanent consequence.  The injuries defendant inflicted  actually put the victim’s life in danger.  According, the Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that the evidence was sufficient to prove that defendant inflicted great bodily harm upon the victim.  Affirmed.

State v. Easton, A19-1074, Hennepin County.

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

Sentencing

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether the trial court correctly assigned 1/2 criminal history point for prior conviction of 5th degree drug possession where defendant had a prior conviction of petty misdemeanor possession of marijuana?  

Defendant argued that the trial court erred in assigning 1/2 criminal history point for his prior first time conviction of 5th degree possession of cocaine as a gross misdemeanor which followed an earlier conviction of petty misdemeanor possession of marijuana.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that, for purposes of calculating criminal history, a 5th degree controlled substance possession offense is not classified as a gross misdemeanor when the defendant was previously convicted of a petty misdemeanor violation of chapter 152.

State v. Morgan, A19-1902, Hennepin County.

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

Firearms Lawyer

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether a distress flare launcher is not a firearm?  

At issue in this case was whether a distress flare launcher is a “firearm” under Minnesota Statute §624.713, subd. 1.  The trial held that it was not.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals disagreed, concluding that it depended on whether or not defendant intended to use it as a weapon.  The Minnesota Supreme Court held that, for purposes of this statute, a “firearm” is an instrument designed for attack or defense that expels a projectile by the action or force or gunpowder, combustion, or some other explosive force.  Because a distress flare launcher is not such an instrument, it is not a firearm.  Reversed.

State v. Glover, A19-1656, Minnesota Supreme Court.

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

Expungement

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether it was proper to deny victim’s request to reopen expungement?  

Victim’s brother was murder.  Defendant was charged, but acquitted of the murder.  Defendant subsequently obtained an expungement of the criminal records.  When the expungement was sought, the victim notification statute was violated.  Later, victim requested that the expunged records be re-opened on the grounds that the victim notification statute was violated.  The trial court denied her request to re-open the expunged records.  Victim appealed.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that victim failed to offer legal support for her underlying assumption that a violation of the victim notification statute would provide grounds for her to access the expunged record.  Affirmed.

In re Request for Records by Mohamed, A19-1694, Hennepin 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 another gun rights restoration out of Rice County  

Minnesota Gun Rights Restoration Lawyer Lynne Torgerson has won another gun rights restoration case out of the County of Rice, State of Minnesota.  His disqualifying conviction was a 21 year old theft of motor vehicle conviction, which in 1999, was a felony crime of violence.  The Rice County District Court, The Honorable Christine Long presiding, found good cause for restoration.  The Court found that Ms. Torgerson’s client had matured and was not a public safety risk.  He hadn’t been convicted of a crime for 17 years, was employed, and owned his own business.  He also engaged in volunteer work.  He also wished to be able to go hunting with family and friends.  Well done Ms. Torgerson.

Expungements

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s petition for expungement?  

Defendant sought an expungement of her criminal records.  The trial court denied her request in regard to two (2) record holding agencies.  Defendant appealed.  On appeal, she argued that the trial court, failed to conform to the procedural requirements of the controlling statute.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court’s order contained insufficient findings, indicated a failure to abide by the statutory framework, and abused its discretion.  Reversed.

State v. G.R.K., A19-2037, Washington County.

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

Vehicle Forfeiture

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether the forfeiture of defendant’s 1985 Ferrari worth approximately $75,000 should be reversed?  

Defendant was convicted of 3rd degree DWI while he had a B card restriction.  Concurrently, his 1985 Ferrari worth approximately $75,000 was forfeited.  On appeal, defendant challenged the forfeiture on the grounds (1) that he was not convicted of a designated offense; and (2) the forfeiture of his Ferrari violated the 8th Amendment prohibition on excessive fines.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld the forfeiture.  Usually, a vehicle may be forfeited only if a person is convicted of 2nd degree DWI or greater.  However, the statute also provides for forfeiture if a defendant is convicted of any level DWI when the defendant also has a restriction on their drivers license.  Hence, defendant was convicted of a designated offense.  Additionally, the Minnesota Court of Appeals simply concluded that the $75,000 vehicle forfeiture was not grossly disproportionate.

This case is a very good example of why forfeiture laws need to be struck down.

Jensen v. 1985 Ferrari, A19-1927, Dakota County.

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

Drug Charges

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether defendant’s conviction of distribution of crack and heroin should be reversed on the grounds the court erred in response to jury question?  

Defendant was convicted of distributing crack and heroin.  During jury deliberations, the jury returned with a question for clarification of the term “on or about.”  The court responded by instructed the jury to re-read the jury instructions.  Defendant appealed his conviction for distribution of crack and heroin.  On appeal, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed defendant’s conviction on the grounds that the trial court did not err by instructing the jury to re-read the jury instructions.

United States v. Stevenson, 19-3224, Loken, J.  Appealed from the United States District Court, Northern District of Iowa.

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

1st degree criminal sexual conduct

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Whether victim’s prior statements were direct substantive evidence of genital contact?  

Defendant was convicted of 1st and 2nd degree criminal sexual conduct.  On appeal, defendant contended that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the victim’s prior inconsistent statements were direct substantive evidence and sufficient to support the jury’s finding of genital to genital contact, despite her trial testimony that defendant’s penis went only between her legs, not into or near her vagina.

State v. Choulamontry, A19-1714, Scott County.

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

Corona Virus COVID 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.

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 I work to protect citizens’ Second Amendment rights, and, because a lot of work is done remotely, everything can easily proceed.

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.