Harassment Cases

1. For a state employer to be held vicariously liable for an employee's intentional tort under the Minnesota State Tort Claims Act, Minnesota Statutes section 3.736 (2022), the tort must: (1) be related to the duties of the employee; and (2) occur within work-related limits of time and place—consistent with the common law standard under which the employer, if a private person, would be vicariously liability. 2. The district court erred when dismissing a complaint against the Minnesota Department of Corrections for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because the facts alleged in the complaint—including a state employee's perpetration of a sexual assault and sexual harassment—could allow a jury to find that the state employee was acting within the scope of office or employment under circumstances where the Department would be liable under the common law for vicarious liability. Affirmed.

In these consolidated appeals from the district court's grant of harassment restraining orders (HROs), appellants argue that the record does not support the inclusion of respondent's minor children as persons protected by those HROs. We affirm.

Appellant Brooke Simpson challenges the district court's grant of a harassment restraining order (HRO) in favor of respondent Fiorella Y Andrade Carpio, arguing that "Fiorella Y Andrade Carpio" appears on the HRO petition that respondent filed with the district court. We use the caption from district court's order even though it does not match the shortened version that appears on respondent's brief. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 143.01. the record does not support the findings of harassment and that the HRO violated her First Amendment rights. Because the record supports the grant of the HRO, we affirm.

Appellant argues on appeal that the district court: (1) erred in finding her in civil contempt and in awarding respondent attorney fees because the underlying harassment restraining order expired prior to the contempt ruling; and (2) misapplied Minn. Stat. § 588.10 (2022) when it fined appellant because such a fine is a criminal sanction and appellant was found in civil, not criminal, contempt. We affirm the district court's finding of civil contempt and award of attorney fees to respondent, but we reverse the district court's imposition of a fine under Minn. Stat. § 588.10.

Telecommunications harassment CCO 621.10 text messages emails sufficiency of the evidence jury instruction plain error prejudice admission of testimony Evid.R. 1002 harmless error manifest weight of the evidence criminal complaint defect in indictment Crim.R. 12(C)(2) R.C. 2941.29 ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court did not err in misstating the date of the offense, treating the criminal complaint as charging two offenses, or admitting testimony from the victim regarding the content of text messages. Appellant's conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Finally, appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel.

The trial court did not err by granting appellee a civil stalking protection order against appellant pursuant to R.C. 2903.214(C)(1) where the trial court's finding appellant had engaged in a pattern of conduct that either knowingly caused appellee to believe that appellant would cause her physical harm or knowingly caused appellee to suffer mental distress was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence given appellant's repeated harassment of appellee over the preceding two years