Minnesota Court of Appeals Opinions: January 5, 2026

Daniel Suitor

Daniel Suitor

— 10 min read
Minnesota Court of Appeals Opinions: January 5, 2026

Today’s edition of Minnesota Appellate Court Watch covers the opinions released by the Minnesota Court of Appeals on January 5, 2026. I’m late this week, largely because I took a case over the weekend set for trial on Monday morning. That took a lot of my day! The fun never stops, and neither does the Court of Appeals. We have a lighter batch of opinions this week, so it’s a perfect opportunity to shake off the post-holiday haze and 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

15 Opinions

  • 6 Civil

  • 9 Criminal

  • 0 precedential

  • 12 nonprecedential

  • 3 order opinion

  • 11 affirmed

  • 4 reversed and remanded

Decisions average 326 days from filing, 72 since argument.

  • Civil: 315 / 70

  • Criminal: 332 / 73

  • Precedential: n/a

  • Nonprecedential 340 / 79

  • Order opinions: 269 / 43

Most active jurist: We have a tie between Judges James Florey (ret.), Lucinda Jesson (ret.), and Renee Worke, with two opinions apiece. Two retired judges coming off the back-bench to take a share of the lead, what a development.

Case Name of the Week

Bork v. Bork

Sentence of the Week

In my experience, the Court of Appeals tends to take a light rhetorical hand with the work of the District Courts, generally refraining from shining a light directly or harshly on substandard work from a trial court. It’s probably good for the profession and the public and, in my opinion, most judges probably take the hint without the need for inflammatory language. So, where do these selections from In re Custody of M.R.K. and H.L.J.K rank within the realm of the COA’s typically reserved language?

Of the court’s 55-page order, about 41 pages recited the trial testimony. . . .

The portion of the district court’s order that recites trial testimony and evidence presented to it is of scant use in our review, other than to mirror what is already in the record. . . .

Here, the district court applied the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard under Minn. Stat. §§ 260C.515 and .517(a).  These statutes are for juvenile protection matters.  This case is not a juvenile-protection matter; it is a child-custody-award matter.

Without a proper analysis in the proper context, the district court failed to make a full and proper evaluation of whether joint legal and joint physical custody was appropriate. . . .

I am mindful of the difficult job that district court judges and their staff have. That’s why we have the Court of Appeals which, as it will often remind you, is an “error-correcting court.” But if the error-correction is particularly blunt, it’s fair to say it catches the eye.

This Week I Learned

State v. Torgerson was a powerful ruling pushing back against the practice of law enforcement claiming they could smell marijuana to justify a warrantless search of a vehicle. An important modernization of our search and seizure jurisprudence. But! Don’t try to pre-argue your suppression case, because the Court of Appeals may find that your roadside lawyering supports an arrest for obstruction.

After verifying Daly’s driver’s license and insurance information, the sergeant asked Daly to step out of the vehicle.  Daly asked why, and the sergeant told Daly that he was going to search the vehicle because he smelled marijuana. . . . Daly refused to exit his vehicle, telling the sergeant that there was no reasonable, articulable suspicion.  The sergeant told Daly that there was probable cause to search the vehicle and that, if Daly did not comply with his instructions, Daly would go to jail for obstruction.  Daly continued to refuse the sergeant’s commands.  After calling for backup, the sergeant repeatedly ordered Daly to exit the vehicle and warned him that, if he did not cooperate and exit the vehicle, “it’s going to go a completely different way.  Alright?” . . .

The officers physically removed Daly from the vehicle and placed him on the ground.  As the officers tried to maneuver Daly’s arms behind his back to handcuff him, Daly physically resisted by tensing and pulling back his arms.  Daly continued to physically resist the officers, even after he was standing upright in handcuffs and the sergeant placed him under arrest for obstruction of legal process.

I get it, nobody wants to be arrested. Particularly nobody who can argue about reasonable, articulable suspicion. But I doubt many (read: any) cops are going be talked out of a warrantless search by the subject of the search.

Precedential Opinions

none

Nonprecedential Opinions

State v. White, No. A25-0019 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 5, 2026).

  • Criminal
  • Appeal from Chisago County District Court (13-CR-18-1120)
  • Opinion, Worke
  • Reversing a conviction for first-degree aggravated robbery on grounds that the warrantless collection of the defendant’s DNA was an unlawful search and seizure, and remanding for a new trial
  • This decision relies on the Minnesota Supreme Court’s recent opinion in State v. Steeprock, No. A23-0875, which was issued after oral argument in this case and raised by the Appellate Public Defender’s Office via notice of supplemental authority

State v. Sierra, No. A25-0650 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 5, 2026).

  • Criminal: Probation
  • Appeal from Stearns County District Court (73-CR-22-3379)
  • Opinion, Ross
  • Affirming the revocation of probation for first-degree possession of methamphetamine on grounds that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that multiple probation violations for possession and use of methamphetamine in the nine months following the order for probation supported the revocation

Bork v. Bork, No. A24-1012 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 5, 2026).

  • Civil: Family
  • Appeal from Pine County District Court (58-FA-08-315)
  • Opinion, Smith
  • Affirming the enforcement of a 2009 stipulated dissolution decree, by requiring the sale of two properties and awarding 10 years of unpaid spousal maintenance, on grounds that the husband waived his statute of limitations argument regarding the sale by not raising it with the district court, and that various contract and equitable principles such as impossibility and laches did not prevent the award of maintenance amounts within the 10-year statute of limitations

Clerk v. HCMC Hospital, No. A25-0672 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 5, 2026).

  • Civil
  • Appeal from Hennepin County District Court (27-CV-25-6184)
  • Opinion, Bratvold
  • Affirming the district court’s order denying a fee waiver after finding the action frivolous because the appellant only addressed financial eligibility on appeal, not the frivolity argument
  • Notably, this is the same appellant and essentially the same argument and outcome as in Clerk v. Avivo Village, No. A25-0673, issued a few weeks ago

Hunter v. Commissioner of Public Safety, No. A25-0535 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 5, 2026).

  • Civil: Implied Consent
  • Appeal from Hennepin County District Court (27-CV-23-8413)
  • Opinion, Slieter
  • Affirming an order sustaining the revocation of a driver’s license on grounds that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the driver refused to submit to a breath test after four attempts did not result in a usable sample, despite later being diagnosed with “mild intermittent asthma,” because the totality of the circumstances (including asking about the consequences of refusing to test) support a finding of refusal and the petitioner did not meet the necessary showing that he was unable to provide a sample on that day to make out a physical-inability defense

State v. Stone, No. A25-0692 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 5, 2026).

  • Criminal: Sentencing
  • Appeal from Redwood County District Court (64-CR-24-699)
  • Opinion, Wheelock
  • Reversing the grant of a downward dispositional departure on grounds that the record does not support a finding that the defendant was particularly amendable to probation because the district court did not distinguish this defendant from other defendants to show the substantial and compelling circumstances necessary to support a downward departure

In re Ronald E. Roehrs Trust, No. A25-0825 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 5, 2026).

  • Civil: Estates and Trusts
  • Appeal from Waseca County District Court (81-CV-23-104)
  • Opinion, Bentley
  • Affirming an order appointing a successor trustee on grounds that (1) the language of the trust required a successor to be chosen by a vote of the beneficiaries; and (2) procedural arguments concerning the form and timing of certain filings were unavailing, and affirming the denial of the petitioner’s motion to remove the district court judge on grounds that (1) the judge’s mistaken entry of final judgment instead of an interim order does not create an appearance of partiality; and (2) deciding the case against petitioner without allowing discovery or an evidentiary hearing does not create an appearance of partiality

State v. Daly, No. A24-1955 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 5, 2026).

  • Criminal
  • Appeal from Crow Wing County District Court (18-CR-22-4701)
  • Opinion, Bond
  • Affirming convictions for fifth-degree possession and obstruction of process on grounds that (1) a warrantless expansion of a search of a vehicle was supported, in addition to the smell of marijuana coming from the car, by the officer recalling that drugs and paraphernalia were found in a search of the defendant’s home in another matter; and (2) the defendant’s refusal to exit the vehicle to allow the search and physical resistance of arrest supported his arrest for obstruction, which lead to the search finding methamphetamine on his person from which his conviction stems
  • This is yet another case dealing with the implications of State v. Torgerson, 995 N.W.2d 164 (Minn. 2023), which prohibited warrantless searches of a vehicle based solely on the smell of marijuana. Notably, despite the COA finding there were grounds additional to odor to expand the search, it emphasized the officer’s testimony “overwhelming smell” of “fresh” marijuana, perhaps indicating an opening for State arguments on appeal

State v. Ransom, No. A25-0234 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 5, 2026).

  • Criminal: Sentencing
  • Appeal from Clay County District Court (14-CR-23-2888)
  • Opinion, Florey
  • Affirming a 64-month executed sentence (lower-end of the presumptive range) on grounds that it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to consider dismissed charges or uncharged conduct when imposing a sentence within the presumptive range

State v. Jenni, No. A25-0111 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 5, 2026).

  • Criminal
  • Appeal from Hubbard County District Court (29-CR-23-1267)
  • Opinion, Halbrooks
  • Affirming a conviction for insurance fraud on grounds that it was not prosectorial misconduct to (1) elicit testimony from an insurance company investigator that fraud costs the industry billions of dollars a year and that the costs are generally passed on to consumers, and (2) reference the costs to consumers in his closing statements

State v. Fields, No. A24-1960 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 5, 2026).

  • Criminal:
  • Appeal from Hennepin County District Court (27-CR-24-9368)
  • Opinion, Jesson
  • Affirming the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea for felony domestic assault on grounds that (1) under the fair-and-just standard, the victim recanting did not result in a lack of an evidentiary basis for the plea where the court credited the testimony in the defendant’s original colloquy and police officers observed injuries to the victim consistent with her original report; (2) under the manifest-injustice standard, the plea was voluntary because, while using imperfect language, the district court did not impose additional plea conditions but rather explained the consequences of default of a condition the defense request, and the plea was accurate because there is sufficient evidence to support a conviction despite the victim’s recantation; and (3) it was not structural error for the district court to independently review a recording of the plea hearing when deciding the motion to withdraw

State v. Clements, No. A24-1709 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 5, 2026).

  • Criminal: Postconviction Relief
  • Appeal from Carlton County District Court (09-CR-24-206)
  • Opinion, Jesson
  • Reversing a 50-month sentence for second-degree assault with a deadly weapon on grounds that the district court erred by finding that criminal history points for consecutively sentenced prior offenses did not begin to decay towards their 15-year limit for consideration until the supervised release period for the prior offense ended, and rather that sentences begin to decay on from the end of the individual offense’s sentence period regardless of whether the defendant is still serving another of the consecutively sentenced offenses

Order Opinions

In re Civil Commitment of Miles, No. A25-0668 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2025).

  • Civil: Civil Commitment
  • Appeal from Mower County District Court (50-PR-13-1225)
  • Opinion, Frisch
  • Affirming the denial of a motion to vacate a civil commitment judgment on grounds that the respondent never sought to waive his right to counsel in the initial proceeding
  • This case represents another challenge to commitment based on the Minnesota Supreme Court's ruling in In re Civil Commitment of Benson, 12 N.W.3d 711 (Minn. 2024), 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 Custody of M.R.K. and H.L.J.K., No. A25-0226 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2025).

  • Civil: Family
  • Appeal from Rice County District Court (66-FA-22-2546)
  • Opinion, Worke
  • Reversing an award of joint legal and physical custody on grounds that the district court applied improper juvenile-protection standards to a child-custody case, and improper best-interest factors relating to out-of-home placement to a case concerning joint children and de facto custody of a non-joint child

Saari v. State, No. A25-0746 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2025).

  • Criminal: Postconviction Relief
  • Appeal from St. Louis County District Court (69DU-CR-18-4166)
  • Opinion, Florey
  • Affirming the denial of a petition for postconviction relief from a conviction for aggravated first-degree witness tampering on grounds that the mens rea requirement of the tampering statute is consonant with recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023), and denying relief from a conviction for nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images on grounds that recent SCOTUS precedent in Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, 603 U.S. 707 (2024) only addressed the standard for facial constitutionality analysis and not any substantive matter of constitutionality

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.

Read more