Back v. State
| Decision Date | 07 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | A20-1098 |
| Citation | 964 N.W.2d 159 |
| Parties | Danna Rochelle BACK, petitioner, Respondent, v. STATE of Minnesota, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Joseph A. Gangi, Farrish Johnson Law Office, Chtd., Mankato, Minnesota (for respondent)
Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Brittany D. Lawonn, Assistant County Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Slieter, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and Hooten, Judge.
SLIETER, Judge Appellant State of Minnesota appeals the district court's determination that respondent Danna Rochelle Back is eligible for compensation based on exoneration. The state argues that the district court erred in concluding that Back was exonerated as contemplated by Minn. Stat. § 590.11. The district court properly determined that Back was exonerated as defined in subdivision 1, properly applied subdivision 3 by concluding the crime was not committed by Back, and properly determined that Back satisfied the elements of subdivision 5 of the statute. However, because the district court failed to exercise its discretion to determine Back's eligibility for compensation as an exonerated person as required by subdivision 7, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
This case has a significant history before all three levels of the judicial branch and has resulted in a revamping of Minn. Stat. § 590.11 (), by the legislature. The district court's conclusion that Back is eligible for compensation pursuant to the amended exoneration statute, of which the state seeks review, comes before our court as Back V .
In 2007, Back and N.S., at Back's insistence, went to the home of Back's former boyfriend. State v. Back , No. A08-0017, 2009 WL 910756, at *1 (Minn. App. Apr. 7, 2009) (Back I ). At the home, N.S. fatally shot Back's former boyfriend with a firearm. Id. Though Back did not possess or use the firearm, a jury found Back guilty of second-degree manslaughter with culpable negligence. Id. The district court entered judgment of conviction and sentenced Back to an executed prison sentence, which our court affirmed. Id. at *7.
The supreme court reversed the conviction, concluding that the evidence was insufficient to establish that Back was culpably negligent because she owed no legal duty to N.S. or the victim. State v. Back , 775 N.W.2d 866, 872 (Minn. 2009) (Back II ). By the time of the supreme court's decision, Back had spent 32 months in prison and four months on supervised release.
Back next petitioned for eligibility for compensation pursuant to Minnesota's exoneration-compensation statute, which the district court denied. Our court reversed this decision and determined that Back qualified as an exonerated person within the meaning of subdivision 1 and remanded the case for consideration of the other eligibility requirements. Back v. State , 883 N.W.2d 614 (Minn. App. 2016) (Back III ). The supreme court determined that a portion of the statute which provided Back with a remedy was unconstitutional and reversed the court of appeals decision. Back v. State , 902 N.W.2d 23 (Minn. 2017) (Back IV ).
Following legislative amendments to subdivision 1 of the statute, which redefined what it means to be "exonerated," Back again petitioned the district court for a determination of eligibility. Following a hearing, the district court concluded that Back was eligible to seek compensation based on exoneration. The state appeals.
Did the district court fail to exercise its discretion as required by Minn. Stat. § 590.11, subd. 7, to determine whether Back was eligible to seek exoneration compensation?
The state argues the district court abused its discretion by concluding Back was eligible to seek exoneration compensation. We first outline the steps the exoneration-compensation statutes provide for a determination of eligibility and receipt of exoneration compensation. Next, we consider those steps and the facts of this case to address whether the district court abused its discretion.
In 2014, the Minnesota legislature enacted an exoneration-compensation statute, Minn. Stat. §§ 611.362 -.368 (2014), which provides an avenue for exonerated persons to petition to seek compensation from the state through Minn. Stat. § 590.11. In 2019, the legislature amended subdivision 1 of section 590.11, which defines "exonerated." Following a successful completion of the four steps required by section 590.11, four additional steps pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 611.362 -.368 must occur before a petitioner may receive compensation for exoneration.
Section 590.11 prescribes a four-step process for the district court to determine eligibility based upon exoneration. Minn. Stat. § 590.11. The burden of proof rests on the petitioner to demonstrate the facts alleged in the petition by a preponderance of the evidence. Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd. 3 (2020).
First, a petitioner must prove, and the district court must find, as a threshold issue that the petitioner was exonerated. Minn. Stat. § 590.11, subd. 1 ; Back II , 883 N.W.2d at 619. The question of whether a petitioner meets the statutory definition of "exonerated" presents a question of statutory interpretation that appellate courts review de novo. Back IV , 902 N.W.2d at 27. In prior appellate cases, no hearing occurred because the district court determined whether the petitioner was exonerated "on grounds consistent with innocence" and that was the appellate issue. See , e.g. , Back III , 883 N.W.2d at 616 ; Freeman v. State , 944 N.W.2d 488, 491 (Minn. App. 2020) ; Kingbird v. State , 949 N.W.2d 744, 750 (Minn. App. 2020), review granted (Minn. Nov. 17, 2020).
The Minnesota legislature amended the exoneration-compensation statute in 2019 to define "exonerated" as having a "vacated, reversed, or set aside [ ] judgment of conviction on grounds consistent with innocence. " Minn. Stat. § 590.11, subd. 1(b)(1)(i) (Supp. 2019) (emphasis added). The legislature defined "on grounds consistent with innocence" as a showing of "any evidence of factual innocence" by the petitioner. Id. , subd. 1(c) (Supp. 2019). Unlike the previous cases to come before our court for review of a petition pursuant to section 590.11, this matter proceeded to an evidentiary hearing, which requires us, for the first time, to review an order that addresses additional subdivisions of the statute beyond subdivision 1.
Second, the district court must "determine if an individual who is exonerated is eligible for compensation based on the establishment of innocence. " Id. , subd. 3(b) (Supp. 2019) (emphasis added). This requires the petitioner to establish "that a crime was not committed or that the crime was not committed by the petitioner." Id.1
Third, the district court must determine whether the exonerated petitioner meets the elements described in subdivision 5. This subdivision states that:
Minn. Stat. § 590.11, subd. 5. We note that steps two and three of the analysis will typically be combined for the district court to consider during the hearing and based on both the record and the facts presented.
Fourth, subdivision 7 requires the district court to exercise its discretion to determine whether the exonerated petitioner is eligible for compensation: "If, after considering all the files and records admitted and any evidence admitted at a hearing held pursuant to subdivision 4 , the court determines that the petitioner is eligible for compensation, the court shall issue an order containing its findings ...." Id. , subd. 7 (emphasis added). Subdivision 4—which informs the district court's analysis of steps two, three, and four—describes the evidence which may be considered in determining eligibility:
Court records related to the conviction and the exoneration are admissible in a proceeding under this section .... Both the petitioner and the prosecutor have the right to present additional evidence. The court may consider acts by the petitioner that may have contributed to bringing about the conviction and any other offenses that may have been committed by the petitioner in the same behavioral incident, except for those acts contained in subdivision 5, paragraph (c). The victim of the offense has a right to submit an oral or written statement before the court issues its order. The statement may summarize the harm suffered by the victim as a result of the crime and give the victim's recommendation on whether the petition should be granted or denied.
Id. , subd. 4 (emphasis added).
If a petitioner succeeds in obtaining a district court order concluding eligibility for compensation, the petitioner may bring a claim for an award based on exoneration. Because the facts and procedural history of this case implicate only the above section 590.11 process, we do not address the process which will next occur pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 611.362 -.368, in our analysis.2
We now apply this statutory framework to the facts of this case. For reasons described below, the district court properly concluded that the first three steps of the statute were met but the district court failed to exercise its discretion required by step four.
The state argues the district court erred by concluding Back is an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Back v. State
...2021), rev. granted (Minn. Aug. 24, 2021). The court of appeals reversed and remanded to the district court to exercise that discretion, id. at 166, and accepted the parties' petitions for further review. We conclude that Back has not presented "any evidence of factual innocence," Minn. Sta......