default.html.twig template not found for page: /resources/legal-not-so-eze/october-2025Following Appellant’s conviction for third-degree assault, he was ordered to pay restitution to the victim’s workers compensation provider. At the restitution hearing, the district court admitted an affidavit and spreadsheets purporting to show payments made in the victim’s worker’s compensation case, as proof of the provider’s expenses incurred on the victim’s behalf as a result of his injuries caused by Appellant.
The district court admitted the spreadsheets under the business records hearsay exception, Minn. R. Evid. 803(6). The rules of evidence apply to restitution hearings. Id. at 1101(3). At restitution hearings, Minn. R. Evid. 1101(c) specifically allows the foundation for business records under Rule 803(6) to be established by affidavit or attestation in lieu of testimony. However, the Court of Appeals holds that the same foundational requirements that apply to witness testimony in support of evidence offered pursuant to Rule 803(6) also apply to an affidavit or attestation offered in lieu of testimony under Rule 1101(c).
Rule 803(6) has been interpreted to impose foundational requirements for business records offered as evidence excepted from the hearsay rule, including that a records custodian or other qualified witness testify as to the creation and keeping of the records in the regular course of business. By the plain language of both Rules 803(6) and 1101(c), the Court of Appeals finds that these foundational requirements still apply to restitution hearings, but that an affidavit or attestation may be used to show that the requirements are met.
Thus, “when the state relies on a business record to establish the amount and items of restitution, Minn. R. Evid. 1101(c) allows the state to establish foundation for the record under Minn. R. Evid. 803(6) by showing, through testimony, affidavit, or proper attestation of the record custodian or other qualified witness, that (1) the records were kept in the regular course of a regularly conducted business activity, (2) it was a regular practice of the business to make the records, and (3) the records were made at or near the time by or based on information from a person with knowledge of the material recorded therein.”
The affidavit and spreadsheets admitted in this case did not meet the foundational requirements of Rule 803(6) and, therefore, should not have been admitted. Without this evidence, there was insufficient evidence to support a restitution award. Reversed and remanded for the district court to vacate its restitution award. State v. Vick, A25-0163, 2025 WL 2901445 (Minn. Ct. App. Oct. 13, 2025).
Police obtained a search warrant for Appellant’s house based on information from a confidential reliable informant (CRI) that the CRI recently observed people smoking methamphetamine in the house. When the warrant was executed, methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia were found. The district court denied Appellant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained during the search, rejecting her argument that the warrant was not supported by probable cause because it did not contain enough detailed information and lacked corroboration of the CRI’s information. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
The general rule is that a search warrant must be based on probable cause, determined by an examination of the totality of the circumstances. Corroboration of a tip is one factor relevant to this assessment, but the Supreme Court “decline[s] to adopt a brightline rule that corroboration is an independent requirement outside of the totality of circumstances analysis.”
Here, the totality of the circumstances, including lack of corroboration of the CRI’s tip, did not establish a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime would be found in Appellant’s house and the warrant should not have been granted. Reversed and remanded. State v. Nagle, A23-0927, 2025 WL 2969746 (Minn. Oct. 22, 2025).