State v. Ness
2012 Minn. App. LEXIS 87
| Minn. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Ness was arrested January 27, 2011 for domestic abuse-related offenses and a pretrial DANCO (DANCO 1) was issued.
- DANCO 1 prohibited contact with the victim; Ness was convicted of domestic assault in February 2011.
- On March 6, 2011 Ness was charged with violating DANCO 1; DANCO 1 was upgraded to a felony under § 629.75(2)(d)(1).
- A second pretrial DANCO (DANCO 2) was issued March 7, 2011 in connection with the new charges.
- On November 23, 2011 Ness was charged with a felony for violating DANCO 2 and obstructing legal process; in January 2012 Ness moved to dismiss the charges arguing § 629.75 violated due process.
- District court dismissed the two felony counts, held Ness could collaterally attack the DANCOs in a subsequent prosecution, and held § 629.75 unconstitutional on due-process grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can a defendant collaterally attack a DANCO in a later violation case without appealing the DANCO's issuance? | Ness argues collateral attack is barred by failure to appeal. | State asserts no right to appeal pretrial DANCO, so collateral attack is permissible. | Collateral attack allowed; no right to appeal pretrial DANCO prevents collateral challenge. |
| Is Minn.Stat. § 629.75 facially unconstitutional and does it violate due process in dismissing the DANCO-violation charges? | Ness contends the statute violates due process and is vague. | State contends § 629.75 provides notice and hearing and is not void for vagueness. | Statute not facially unconstitutional; provides notice and hearing and is not void for vagueness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Danielson, 558 N.W.2d 286 (Minn.App.1997) (purely legal issues reviewed de novo)
- Harrington, 504 N.W.2d 500 (Minn.App.1993) (HARMS pretrial restraining order appeal rights; collateral attack barred)
- Romine, 757 N.W.2d 884 (Minn.App.2008) (OFP collateral attack limitations when appeal rights exist)
- In re Welfare of K.C., 513 N.W.2d 18 (Minn.App.1994) (guidance on avoiding arbitrary enforcement; particular cruelty standard)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S.1980) (three-factor due-process balancing test)
- State v. King, 257 N.W.2d 693 (Minn.1977) (notice and knowledge of law presumed)
- State v. Newstrom, 371 N.W.2d 525 (Minn.1985) (void-for-vagueness considerations)
- Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (U.S.1983) (vagueness and discretion in enforcement)
- Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (U.S.1975) (pretrial probable-cause considerations)
- Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535 (U.S.1971) (due process minimum for provisional determinations)