At page 315 quotations omitted3 citing cases
- State of Minnesota v. Lacy Rose Carlsen, No. A15-1459 (Minn. Ct. App. July 5, 2016). (quotations omitted)
- State of Minnesota v. Eddie Niles Hubbard, No. A14-1259 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 10, 2015).(quotations omitted)
- State v. Welle, 847 N.W.2d 52 (Minn. Ct. App. 2014). (quotations omitted)
At page 320 explaining that generally “[t]he jury is presumed to have followed such instructions2 citing cases
- State of Minnesota v. James Michael Soderbeck, No. A14-1275 (Minn. Ct. App. June 22, 2015).It is unclear whether Campbell represents a deliberate change to the harmless-error test in Spreigl cases, which previously considered whether there was “a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected…
- State of Minnesota v. Keith Richard Rossberg, 851 N.W.2d 609 (Minn. 2014).(explaining that generally “[t]he jury is presumed to have followed such instructions)
At page 311 cited at this page1 citing case
- State v. Riddley, 776 N.W.2d 419 (Minn. 2009). Id. at 311.
At page 313 cited at this page1 citing case
- State v. Beecroft, 813 N.W.2d 814 (Minn. 2012). But “the failure to give such a warning does not necessarily make a juvenile’s Miranda warning inadequate. • The warning may still be adequate if a juvenile may be imputed with the knowledge of potential adult court prosecution.” Fardan, 7…
At page 319 including “the State’s need to strengthen weak or inadequate proof” as a factor in determining whether the probative value of Spreigl evidence outweighs its potential for unfair prejudice1 citing case
- State of Minnesota v. Dennis Vincent Gomez, No. a250781 (Minn. Ct. App. June 22, 2026).(including “the State’s need to strengthen weak or inadequate proof” as a factor in determining whether the probative value of Spreigl evidence outweighs its potential for unfair prejudice)
At page 322 quotations omitted1 citing case
- State of Minnesota v. Tylynne Lashawn Wilson, No. a240330 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2025).(quotations omitted)
ORDER
The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility has filed a petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent Jana Harvieux Effertz committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline, namely, notarizing signatures on 17 affidavits in a child custody proceeding, which signatures respondent had not actually witnessed, in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(c) and (d). Respondent waives her procedural rights under Rule 14, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR), and admits the allegations of the petition. The parties jointly recommend that the appropriate discipline is a public reprimand and two years of unsupervised probation.
The court has independently reviewed the file and approves the recommended disposition.
Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent Jana Harvieux Effertz is publicly reprimanded and placed on probation for a period of two years from the date of filing of this order, subject to the following terms and conditions:
(a) Respondent shall cooperate fully with the Director’s Office in its efforts to monitor compliance with this probation. Respondent shall promptly respond to the Director’s correspondence by the due date. Respondent shall provide the Director with a current mailing address and shall immediately notify the Director of any change of address. Respondent shall cooperate with the Director’s investigation of any allegations of unprofessional conduct that may come to the Director’s attention. At the Director’s request, respondent shall provide authorization for release of information and documentation to verify compliance with the terms of this probation.
(b) Respondent shall abide by the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct.
Respondent shall pay $900 in costs pursuant to Rule 24, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility.
BY THE COURT:
/s/Alan C. Page Associate Justice