Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Date: 05-06-2022
Case Style:
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: