Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 05-06-2022

Case Style:

Vaundell Duwayne Kingbird v. State of Minnesota

Case Number: A19-1850

Judge: McKeig

Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota on appeal from the District Court, Itasca County

Plaintiff's Attorney: Rob Shane

Defendant's Attorney: Keith Ellison and Matti R. Adam

Description: Grand Rapids, Minnesota criminal defense lawyer represented Plaintiff, who sued Defendants seeking compensation for having been exonerated on being a felon in possession of a firearm.

Vaundell Duwayne Kingbird was exonerated for purposes of the statute used to determine if a person whose
conviction has been reversed, vacated, or set aside is eligible for compensation based on
exoneration, Minn. Stat. § 590.11 (2020) (the eligibility- for-exoneration-compensation-
statute). The applicable definition of “ exonerated” requires Kingbird to establish “any
evidence of factual innocence.” Id., subd. 1(b)(1), 1(c)(2).

Kingbird was convicted in 2010 of violating Minn. Stat. § 609.165, subd. 1b(a)
(2014), which makes it a crime for certain convicted felons to possess a firearm. After we
held in State v. Haywood, 886 N.W.2d 485, 487 (Minn. 2016), that an air-compressed BB
gun is not a “firearm” under this statute, Kingbird’s conviction was vacated. Kingbird then
filed a petition for an order determining that he was eligible for compensation based on
exoneration. The district court denied the petition, and the court of appeals affirmed. We
conclude that Kingbird has not provided any evidence of factual innocence.

Outcome: Affirmed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: