State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Patrick Jay Sullivan, Appellant, A231134

Sullivan was charged with felony domestic assault, which requires proof of misdemeanor domestic assault plus two prior qualified domestic violence-related convictions within ten years. 1
Defense counsel verbally stipulated to Sullivan’s prior convictions, but Sullivan never personally waived a jury determination on that element and the jury was not instructed on it. 2
The jury found Sullivan guilty, and Sullivan later sought postconviction relief arguing the State failed to prove the prior-convictions element. 3
The postconviction court initially vacated the conviction, but on reconsideration reinstated it, and the court of appeals affirmed. 4
On review, Sullivan argued reinstatement violated double jeopardy and that the conviction had to be reversed for insufficient evidence on the prior-convictions element. 5
The supreme court affirmed, holding reinstatement did not offend double jeopardy and Sullivan invited the error that prevented the State from presenting evidence of the prior convictions. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did reinstating Sullivan’s conviction violate double jeopardy? 7	Sullivan claimed reinstatement after vacatur was a second prosecution and punishment.	Minnesota argued reinstatement merely restored the original jury verdict and sentence.	No; reinstatement did not create multiple prosecutions or punishments. 8
Can Sullivan challenge lack of proof on the prior-convictions element after inviting the evidentiary error? 9	Sullivan argued the State presented insufficient evidence of the prior convictions.	Minnesota argued Sullivan invited the error by preventing a proper written stipulation and evidence presentation.	No; invited error bars relief, and no fairness exception applies. 10

State v. Leroy, 604 N.W.2d 75 (Minn. 1999) (double jeopardy review is de novo 11)
United States v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332 (U.S. 1975) (reinstating a guilty verdict after a post-verdict ruling does not offend double jeopardy 12)
State v. Large, 607 N.W.2d 774 (Minn. 2000) (an acquittal on the merits generally cannot be reviewed without double jeopardy concerns 13)
Smith v. Massachusetts, 543 U.S. 462 (U.S. 2005) (the government may appeal after a guilty verdict is set aside by the trial judge 14)
State v. Jeffries, 806 N.W.2d 56 (Minn. 2011) (double jeopardy barred taking back an earlier conviction and imposing a second conviction on a new plea 15)
State v. Benton, 858 N.W.2d 535 (Minn. 2015) (invited error estops a party from asserting on appeal an error the party induced 16)
State v. Trifiletti, 6 N.W.3d 79 (Minn. 2024) (invited error applies to decisions a party consented to or affirmatively requested 17)
Pulczinski v. State, 972 N.W.2d 347 (Minn. 2022) (courts may correct invited error only when fairness, integrity, or public reputation is seriously affected 18)
State v. Griller, 583 N.W.2d 736 (Minn. 1998) (rare cases justify correcting invited error to protect judicial integrity 19)
State v. Kuhlmann, 806 N.W.2d 844 (Minn. 2011) (discusses plain-error review of stipulations affecting a prior-convictions element 20)