Minnesota Court of Appeals Opinions: December 29, 2025

Daniel Suitor

Daniel Suitor

— 13 min read
Minnesota Court of Appeals Opinions: December 29, 2025

Today’s edition of Minnesota Appellate Court Watch covers the opinions released by the Minnesota Court of Appeals on December 29, 2025. The late hour of this missive comes courtesy of my literal and figurative digging out, thanks to yesterday’s snowstorm and nine straight days of my household fighting the flu in waves. I also enjoyed a two-and-a-half hour drive around the Twin Cities Metro this morning that can be chalked up to my persistent and perhaps-overdone efforts to enable settlement compliance. It's a heavily criminal law week with an interesting spread of issues: two suppression disputes, the reversal of a hefty juvenile restitution order, and a conviction for the crime of driving a Ford Mustang (or impersonation of a peace officer, but close enough). Put away your definitely not a police-badge badge and let's hit the dockets.

This newsletter contains the sole opinions of me, Daniel Suitor. You can reach me via email at opinions[at]minnappct[dot]watch. As always, everything contained here is solely for informational purposes, and is not legal advice. This newsletter is not a solicitation for my services. If you have a legal issue, you should contact your local public defender’s office, legal aid provider, or a private attorney.

Overview

25 Opinions

  • 8 Civil

  • 15 Criminal

  • 2 Certiorari

  • 1 precedential

  • 23 nonprecedential

  • 1 order opinion

  • 20 affirmed

  • 1 affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded

  • 1 affirmed in part and remanded for further findings

  • 3 reversed and remanded

Decisions average 285 days from filing, 75 since argument.

  • Civil: 251 / 80

  • Criminal: 295 / 70

  • Certiorari: 337 / 89

  • Precedential: 223 / 89

  • Nonprecedential 289 / 76

  • Order opinions: 239 / 41

Most active jurist: Judge Michelle Larkin, with an astonishing five opinions, the highest since I began this endeavor. Notably, all five were criminal appeals, and four of the five were decided in less than 50 days from argument, 1.95 standard deviations faster than the average criminal opinion. A remarkable run for Judge Larkin and her staff.

Case Name of the Week

Bernard v. Wealth Enhancement Group LLC

Naming a company seems hard, but also like it inevitably brings out something oddly telling in people. Some of the most evil surveillance, defense, and home security companies in the world are named after J. R. R. Tolkien’s made up words. The companies that control most of our thoughts and feelings have incorporated shell companies with linguistically foundational names because, as I assume their thinking went, “Who can get mad at the Alphabet” and “Meta is just, like, a word for everything.” The most valuable company in the world is named “Nvidia” because it sounds like the Latin word for “envy” and a bunch of video game nerds in 1993 were like “Our rivals are for sure jealous of us.” And just look at me: I tried to come up with a firm name and rapidly gave up, saying "screw it, I'm just using my name." What a hack job.

And in finance, you have multiple schools of awful names. Keeping the names of guys who died a century ago in the company name. Names so blandly descriptive that they best describe a type of company rather than a specific company (e.g. Capital Group, Legal & General Group, Bank of America). And my personal favorite: the inoffensive amalgam of soft syllables that could just as well be a multinational financial conglomerate, a prescription drug advertised at 1:30 A.M. on truTV, or a second-tier but surprisingly sporty sedan.

Which brings us to Wealth Enhancement Group LLC. I am sure that Wealth Enhancement Group is a super normal and completely above-board retail financial advisor service. But it has the name of a scammy mid-level marketing firm that pays bots to DM you on Instagram. It has the name of the company the most annoying guy you know on LinkedIn would "found" (register for $155) and post about five times a day. It has the name of a company you’d first hear about in an FBI press release because they raided the Miami beach condo of a founder before he could flee to a non-extradition country. I get it. It’s fairly descriptive, and who doesn’t want to enhance their wealth? But why not something right down the middle like “American Financial Advisors of America” or “Smylaris”? Those ones are for free!

Sentence of the Week

The red Mustang pulled up next to J.J.’s driver’s-side window and stopped. The driver of the red Mustang, later identified as [Defendant], flashed a badge and said to J.J. and S.S., “In this state we drive 30 miles an hour,” and “the radar said you were going closer to 40.” J.J. asked [Defendant] if the red Mustang was an official police vehicle, and [Defendant] said, “It’s a detective vehicle.” Soon thereafter, [Defendant] drove away. . . .

[Defendant] testified that he pulled up next to the white SUV in the Culver’s parking lot and told the driver that he had cut off multiple drivers, that he was “going fast,” at least “35, 40 miles an hour,” and that “in Minnesota, the speed limit’s 30.” Novak denied using the flashing lights on his vehicle, having radar in his vehicle, showing his NAPD [a self-founded organization] badge, and saying that he was a police officer.

State v. Novak, pp. 2–3.

I'm sorry, man, but this is the least believable testimony of all time. How is a jury supposed to believe that someone who drives a red Ford Mustang cares about driving the speed limit? You’re just not setting yourself up for success, my guy.

Precedential Opinions

Paragon Restorations, LLC v. Robinet Productions, LLC, No. A25-0826 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2025).

  • Civil: Personal Injury
  • Appeal from Hennepin County District Court (27-CV-25-431)
  • Opinion, Ede
  • Ruling that, to prevail on a special motion under Minnesota’s anti-SLAPP law (MUPEPA), if the speech is not in or on a legislative, executive, judicial, or other governmental proceeding, the moving party must establish that the cause of action is based on speech on a matter of public concern even if the action relates to consumer opinions or commentary, evaluations of consumer complaints, or reviews or ratings of businesses as provided by law

Nonprecedential Opinions

State v. Bethel, No. A25-0238 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2025).

  • Criminal
  • Appeal from Sherburne County District Court (71-CR-23-790)
  • Opinion, Johnson
  • Affirming convictions for five counts of varying degrees of criminal sexual conduct on grounds that it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to admit Spreigl evidence (other bad acts) for the purpose of proving a common scheme

State v. Novak, No. A25-0165 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2025).

  • Criminal
  • Appeal from Mower County District Court (50-CR-23-1087)
  • Opinion, Johnson
  • Affirming a conviction for impersonating a peace officer on grounds that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction where the defendant pulled behind another car, activated dashboard-mounted strobe lights, followed the car to a Culvers parking lot, flashed a badge at the people in the car, and told the people in the car that his red Ford Mustang was “a detective vehicle”

State v. Brown, No. A25-0105 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2025).

  • Criminal
  • Appeal from Hennepin County District Court (27-CR-23-23183)
  • Opinion, Johnson
  • Affirming a conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm on grounds that (1) there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove mens rea where the gun was found loaded, handle up, wedged between the front seats, and no evidence was introduced that anyone else had been in the car; and (2) there was no prosecutorial misconduct in the State’s rebuttal argument which suggested the jury weigh the reasonableness of the defense and State’s cases because it was responding to the defense’s argument that, if the jury found both stories reasonable, it should find the defendant not guilty

In re Welfare of K.A.A., No. A25-0811 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2025).

  • Criminal: Juvenile
  • Appeal from Becker County District Court (03-JV-24-1049)
  • Opinion, Larkin
  • Reversing a $9,000 restitution order in a case concerning the defendant’s damaging of a car with a metal pipe on grounds that (1) when the district court dismissed the challenge to restitution on procedural grounds and imposed the requested restitution, it failed to make statutorily required findings including those concerning the defendant’s ability to pay; and (2) the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel where counsel procured an affidavit for the restitution challenge signed by the defendant’s parent, rather than the defendant as required by statute.

State v. Swenson, No. A25-0349 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2025).

  • Criminal: Sentencing
  • Appeal from Clay County District Court (14-CR-23-792)
  • Opinion, Larkin
  • Affirming a sentence for second-degree intentional murder on grounds that the longest-possible presumptive sentence (“top of the box”) was not an abuse of the district court’s discretion where (1) the court considered the defendant’s mental health in its analysis, and (2) there was no evidence to support the defendant’s allegations that he was abused by the victim

State v. Kennedy, No. A25-0348 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2025).

  • Criminal: Sentencing
  • Appeal from Olmsted County District Court (55-CR-24-515)
  • Opinion, Larkin
  • Affirming the denial of a motion for a downward departure on sentences for felony domestic assault by strangulation and felony domestic assault on grounds that (1) the district court properly considered the defendant’s individual circumstances and amenability to probation; and (2) that the defendant did not exhibit a particular amenability to probation relative to other defendants, particularly where he was already on felony probation for domestic assault against the same victim

State v. Rodriguez, No. A25-0331 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2025).

  • Criminal
  • Appeal from Nobles County District Court (53-CR-24-106)
  • Opinion, Larkin
  • Affirming a conviction for fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct on grounds that (1) the district court’s possible inference that the defendant tailored his testimony to the evidence in making credibility determinations was not prejudicial and did not suggest perceived bias; and (2) there was no prosecutorial misconduct in a closing statement which accurately stated the defendant’s testimonial admission

State v. Brogaard, No. A25-0550 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2025).

  • Criminal: Probation
  • Appeal from Stearns County District Court (73-CR-22-6142)
  • Opinion, Larkin
  • Affirming the revocation of probation for drug-sale offenses on grounds that the district court made the necessary findings under State v. Austin, 295 N.W.2d 246, supported by the record, with one exception which was not prejudicial

Bernard v. Wealth Enhancement Group LLC, No. A25-0243 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2025).

  • Civil
  • Appeal from Hennepin County District Court (27-CV-24-9653)
  • Opinion, Reyes
  • Affirming the dismissal of a complaint concerning breach of contract and failure to pay sales commissions on grounds that the plaintiff failed to address an independent ground for dismissal by the district court (accord and satisfaction) on appeal, and affirming denial of the defendant’s motion for sanctions on grounds that the plaintiff’s arguments of law were colorable and the record does not show that the case was brought for an improper purpose

State v. Meyer, No. A24-2043 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2025).

  • Criminal
  • Appeal from Anoka County District Court (02-CR-24-2593)
  • Opinion, Reyes
  • Affirming a conviction for refusal to submit to a blood or urine chemical test on grounds that there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction where, after one attempt to draw blood, the defendant stated “Okay, that’s one man. That’s it. That’s it. I done, I did my part.”

Treu v. State, No. A25-0695 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2025).

  • Criminal: Postconviction Relief
  • Appeal from Wabasha County District Court (79-CR-19-1081)
  • Opinion, Smith
  • Affirming the summary denial of a petition for postconviction relief on grounds that the petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims are procedurally barred (trial counsel) and not supported by the record (appellate counsel), respectively, and denying a new trial under an “exceptional circumstances” argument because the petitioner makes no allegations concerning judicial or prosecutorial misconduct

State v. Moran, No. A25-0386 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2025).

  • Criminal: Sentencing
  • Appeal from Polk County District Court (60-CR-23-694, 60-CR-21-1512)
  • Opinion, Smith
  • Reversing the imposition of a more-than-double upward durational departure on grounds that, while the defendant forfeited his challenge by failing to raise it below, the interests of justice support appellate consideration and the addition of 30 additional months to the duration of the sentence (beyond the doubled departure of 90 months) at the consent of the parties was not supported by the “severe aggravating factors” required by law

In re Civil Commitment of Irving, No. A25-1091 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2025).

  • Civil: Civil Commitment
  • Appeal from Blue Earth County District Court (07-PR-24-2442)
  • Opinion, Bratvold
  • Affirming an indeterminate commitment on grounds that (1) a long record of criminal sexual offenses supports a finding that the respondent is a sexually dangerous person; and (2) the respondent did not meet his burden to prove that a less-restrictive treatment program was available and appropriate

State v. Robinson, No. A25-0208 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2025).

  • Criminal
  • Appeal from Scott County District Court (70-CR-21-3109)
  • Opinion, Bratvold
  • Affirming a conviction for obstruction of process on grounds that, although the search of the car was unlawful, evidence of defendant’s obstruction stemming from his resisting arrest did not meet the factors for suppression under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.
  • Of note, the first conviction in this case was reversed based on the Supreme Court’s new case law in State v. Torgerson, 995 N.W.2d 164, that the smell of marijuana alone can’t serve as the sole basis for probable cause to search a car

LeMont v. LeMont, No. A25-0406 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2025).

  • Civil: Family
  • Appeal from Morrison County District Court (49-FA-23-417)
  • Opinion, Slieter
  • Affirming decisions in a dissolution decisions concerning tax issues and valuation of business tools, but remanding for findings to permit appellate review on child support issues, division of the marital estate, and obligations concerning vehicle payments and children’s extracurricular activities, where at least on some issues the Court of Appeals could not determine how the district court calculated certain figures

Daramola v. Commissioner of Human Services, No. A25-0675 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2025).

  • Civil
  • Appeal from Scott County District Court (70-CV-27-17647)
  • Opinion, Wheelock
  • Affirming the dismissal of an appeal of a determination that the plaintiff committed maltreatment of a vulnerable adult on grounds that equitable tolling did not apply to the plaintiff’s failure to timely serve the defendant commissioner where the pro se plaintiff filed two improper certiorari appeals instead of a district court matter and the final denial of his administrative matter clearly explained the procedure for seeking review

State v. Edberg-Anderson, No. A25-0615 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2025).

  • Criminal: Probation
  • Appeal from Scott County District Court (70-CR-22-3380)
  • Opinion, Wheelock
  • Affirming the revocation of probation for second-degree possession on grounds that the district court did not abuse its discretion by revoking instead of first attempting intermediate sanctions on grounds that (1) the relevant factors for revocation were satisfied; and (2) there is no requirement that the district court specifically address a request for intermediate sanctions

State v. Robinson, No. A25-0850 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2025).

  • Criminal: Pretrial
  • Appeal from Carlton County District Court (09-CR-24-1060)
  • Opinion, Ede
  • Reversing the suppression of evidence on grounds that (1) a totality of the circumstances support a finding that the defendant was under arrest and not merely detained at the time of the search; and (2) because law enforcement had probable cause to arrest the defendant on a valid child-support warrant, the discovery of methamphetamine on his person was the product of a lawful search incident to arrest

Sundberg v. Sundberg, No. A25-0215 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2025).

  • Civil: Family
  • Appeal from Anoka County District Court (02-FA-22-710)
  • Opinion, Harris
  • Affirming a district court’s order limiting parenting time, awarding sole legal and physical custody to the mother, and ordering the father to undergo domestic abuse counseling, on grounds that the record supports the findings on each issue

In re Appeal by Abdulle of the Order of License Revocation, No. A24-1899 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2025).

  • Certiorari: Professional Licensing
  • On writ of certiorari from the Minnesota Department of Human Services (No. 39249)
  • Opinion, Harris
  • Affirming the revocation of adult foster care licenses on grounds that the Commissioner of Human Services did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in setting aside the recommendation of a Court of Administrative Hearings ALJ in determining that the license-holder did not live in the licensed property as her primary residence, as required by law

State v. Jama, No. A25-0191 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2025).

  • Criminal
  • Appeal from Blue Earth County District Court (07-CR-22-3027)
  • Opinion, Bentley
  • Affirming a conviction for third-degree possession on grounds that it was not an abuse of discretion to deny the defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea where the State told defendant’s counsel that a plea offer would expire at a hearing just a few hours later because the defendant had known about the offer for two weeks and had a chance to consult with his attorney, and affirming the denial of a downward dispositional departure on grounds that it was not an abuse of discretion to impose a presumptive sentence where, among other issues, this was the defendant’s fifth felony conviction and the defendant had a warrant out for his arrest for a year for failure to appear in this matter

In re Civil Commitment of Greene, No. A25-1020 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2025).

  • Civil: Civil Commitment
  • Appeal from Sherburne County District Court (71-P9-05-002825)
  • Opinion, Bond
  • Affirming the denial of a motion to vacate a civil commitment on grounds (mainly) that the respondent never sought to waive his right to counsel in the initial proceeding
  • This case is another in a string of efforts by civilly committed individuals to challenge their commitments based on the Minnesota Supreme Court’s ruling in In re Civil Commitment of Benson, 12 N.W.3d 711, which held that a committed person may waive their right to counsel if they are found competent to give a knowing and intelligent waiver

In re Appeal of Bush to a Rent Stabilization Determination, No. A25-0448 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2025).

  • Certiorari: Municipal Quasi-Judicial
  • On writ of certiorari from the St. Paul City Council (RLH RSA 24-12)
  • Opinion, Bond
  • Reversing the St. Paul City Council’s approval of an 8% rent increase, under the St. Paul Rent Stabilization Ordinance, on grounds that the Council based its decision on an erroneous view of the law by expressly refusing to consider the landlord’s alleged prior violations of the ordinance
  • The COA also ruled that, contrary to the City’s arguments otherwise, the plain language of the RSO requires the St. Paul City Council to consider tenants’ arguments that a property fails to comply with housing laws and the implied warranty of habitability, but held that the Council properly did so in this case

Order Opinions

Jones v. Jones, No. A25-0680 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2025).

  • Civil: Family
  • Appeal from Hennepin County District Court (27-FA-24-743)
  • Opinion, Larson
  • Affirming a dissolution decree against a shotgun series of pro se arguments including constitutional due process challenges, the district court’s use of statutory best-interest factors in determining custody, and a 5th Amendment violation in drawing an adverse inference from a refusal to answer

Miscellanea

Banner image courtesy of the inestimable Tony Webster.

Out of candor to readers, my standing disclosures and conflicts are listed at the bottom of this page. I will disclose if I have worked on a case in a formal capacity, had any informal contacts with the case, or have personal connections to the case. I do this because I think transparency about my background helps readers judge my writing properly. This week, you should know:

  • While at HOME Line, I did extensive policy work on the St. Paul Rent Stabilization Ordinance. I also have friends at Housing Justice Center, which litigated the appeal in A25-0448.

Read more