Perjury oath notary affidavit 241

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.

Perjury is an exceedingly uncommon criminal charge.  It is surprising that this case was even charged out and prosecuted.  Even more surprising, is that the jury convicted him.  And, the jury convicted him in spite of the notary’s testimony that he never administered an oath to defendant.  The evidence did include however, an affidavit, which had been notarized by the notary.  So, the jury must have not believed the testimony of the notary.  Our jury system is vital to our entire system of justice.  While our system of justice in the United States is not perfect, it is by far one of the best in the world.

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

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

Firearms Lawyer Distress Launcher 226

Minnesota Gun Rights 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 court 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.

Herein, the Minnesota Court of Appeals overstepped its bounds.  Criminal law is required to be very precise.  A lack of precision in criminal law is a violation of due process of law.  Due process of law requires that people be put on notice, in advance, of exactly what conduct constitutes a crime.  Moreover, a court cannot draft legislation, nor make law.  Here, the Minnesota Court of Appeals impermissibly overbroadly interpreted the statute defining a firearm.  A firearm has long been very specifically defined.  Herein, a distress launcher 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 re-open records victim 249

Minneapolis Expungement Lawyer

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

Victim’s brother was murdered.  Defendant was charged, but acquitted of the murder.  Defendant subsequently obtained an expungement of the criminal records.  When a charge is dismissed, and there is no conviction, a defendant is presumptively entitled to an expungement.  Otherwise, in a murder case, a person would probably never be able to obtain an expungement.  Most serious felonies are not eligible for statutory expungement.  When an expungement is granted, historically, the records were returned to the petitioner, or, destroyed.  Today, the records, generally speaking, are only sealed.  And, if they are sealed, there are only two circumstances where they can be re-opened:  (1) is when the person is seeking to become a police officer; and (2) if the person has a new criminal case.  Then, the statute allows the records to be re-opened.  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.