Speak Now or Forfeit: Minnesota Supreme Court Reaffirms Strict Preservation for Restitution Challenges and Narrows Use of the “Legal Authority” Exception

Speak Now or Forfeit: Minnesota Supreme Court Reaffirms Strict Preservation for Restitution Challenges and Narrows Use of the “Legal Authority” Exception

Introduction

In State of Minnesota v. Erick Dewaun Haynes, 24 N.W.3d 313 (Minn. 2025), the Minnesota Supreme Court addressed whether a defendant who expressly declined to object to restitution in the district court—and who failed to file a timely written request for a restitution hearing—may later raise challenges to that restitution award on appeal. The consolidated appeals arose from a first-degree felony murder conviction under an aiding-and-abetting theory. After imposing the mandatory sentence of life with the possibility of parole, the district court ordered restitution to the Minnesota Crime Victims Reimbursement Board (CVRB) and, later, to several relatives of the deceased victim.

On appeal, Haynes advanced two arguments for the first time: (1) that parts of the restitution award compensated expenses not authorized by statute (notably family members’ travel expenses to attend court proceedings), and (2) that the district court erred by awarding restitution to certain recipients (an aunt, a cousin, and a stepmother) without making findings that they qualify as “family members” within the statutory definition of “victim.” The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Haynes forfeited both challenges by failing to preserve them in the district court and by not following the statutory procedure for challenging restitution.

Summary of the Opinion

The Court held that a defendant’s challenge to the type or amount of restitution must be raised through the statutory mechanism in Minnesota Statutes section 611A.045, subdivision 3, which requires a written request for a restitution hearing within 30 days of sentencing or written notice of the restitution amount, whichever is later. Because Haynes neither objected at the restitution hearings nor filed a timely written request, he forfeited his challenge to the categories of expenses included in the award.

As to the argument that the district court failed to determine whether certain recipients qualified as “family members” (and therefore “victims”), the Court emphasized the narrowness of the exception recognized in State v. Gaiovnik, 794 N.W.2d 643 (Minn. 2011): an out-of-time appeal may proceed only if the defendant’s “only” challenge is to the district court’s legal authority to order restitution and that authority challenge was raised in the district court. Even assuming (without deciding) that Haynes’s status-based argument was a challenge to legal authority, it was not raised below and was therefore forfeited.

The judgment of the district court was affirmed in full.

Detailed Background

Haynes pleaded guilty on April 1, 2024, to first-degree felony murder under Minn. Stat. §§ 609.185(a)(3) and 609.05 (aiding and abetting). He admitted orchestrating an armed confrontation at an apartment with two juveniles, providing them with handguns and directing them to confront and, if necessary, kill the victim’s new partner. During the incident, one juvenile fatally shot the former partner, Zaria McKeever.

At sentencing on April 12, 2024, the State sought $7,500 in restitution to the CVRB and asked the court to reserve restitution for up to 90 days to allow for additional claims. Defense counsel stated that Haynes had “no issue with the request for the $7,500” and agreed to leave restitution open for additional supported expenses. The district court imposed life with the possibility of parole and ordered $7,500 to the CVRB. Haynes was expressly advised that he had 30 days to challenge restitution.

The State later moved to amend the restitution order, submitting affidavits documenting additional expenses for McKeever’s aunt, cousin, and stepmother (including funeral and travel-related expenses for the funeral and court proceedings). At a July 29, 2024 hearing, defense counsel stated Haynes had “no objection.” The court granted the motion, bringing the total restitution to $17,026.06. Haynes did not file a written request for a restitution hearing in the district court; instead, he appealed both the initial and amended awards. The Supreme Court consolidated the appeals.

Analysis

Precedents and Statutory Framework

The Court situated its ruling within Minnesota’s restitution statutes:

  • Minn. Stat. § 611A.04, subd. 1(a): A victim has the right to receive restitution for out-of-pocket losses resulting from the crime as part of the disposition of a criminal case.
  • Minn. Stat. § 611A.01(b): Defines “victim” to include a natural person who incurs loss/harm as a result of a crime and includes the “family members” of a deceased person.
  • Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 1(a): The district court may order restitution after considering only two factors—(1) the amount of economic loss sustained as a result of the offense and (2) the defendant’s ability to pay. See State v. Riggs, 865 N.W.2d 679, 685 (Minn. 2015) (no other factors may be considered).
  • Minn. Stat. § 611A.04, subd. 1(b)(2): The court may amend restitution if “sufficient evidence of a right to restitution has been submitted.”
  • Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 3(b): A defendant must challenge restitution by filing a written request for a hearing within 30 days of sentencing or of receiving written notice of the restitution amount, whichever is later, and “may not” challenge restitution after that period.

Against this statutory backdrop, the Court relied on these decisions:

  • State v. Cloutier, 987 N.W.2d 214, 219–20 (Minn. 2023): When a defendant brings a timely challenge and meets the burden of production, the district court examines whether the request consists of types/categories of expenses that should be compensated through restitution. Cloutier underscores that categorical questions belong in the trial court on a proper record.
  • State v. Gaiovnik, 794 N.W.2d 643, 647–49 (Minn. 2011): Subdivision 3’s 30-day process applies to disputes about the amount or type of restitution. A narrow exception permits an appeal outside the 30-day window only when the defendant’s sole challenge is to the court’s legal authority to order restitution and that challenge was raised in the district court.
  • State v. Beaulieu, 859 N.W.2d 275, 278 n.3 (Minn. 2015): Clarifies “forfeiture” (failure to timely assert a right) versus “waiver” (intentional relinquishment). The Court here uses “forfeiture” to describe Haynes’s failure to follow the statutory process.
  • State v. Cummings, 2 N.W.3d 528, 532 n.4 (Minn. 2024): Reaffirms Gaiovnik’s narrow exception and its preservation requirement.
  • Smith v. State, 974 N.W.2d 576, 582 (Minn. 2022) and State v. Johnson, 851 N.W.2d 60, 64 (Minn. 2014): General principle that claims not raised in the district court are forfeited on appeal.
  • State v. Riggs, 865 N.W.2d 679, 685 (Minn. 2015): Limits the district court’s restitution analysis to the two statutory factors (economic loss and ability to pay), framing the substantive guardrails for restitution awards.

Legal Reasoning and Application

The Supreme Court’s reasoning is crisp and procedural:

  • First challenge (categories of expenses). The claim that portions of the award (notably travel to court proceedings) are not statutorily authorized is, by its nature, a “type or amount” challenge. Under § 611A.045, subd. 3(b), such a challenge must be preserved by filing a written request for a hearing within the statutory window. Haynes did not file any such request and twice told the court he had “no objection.” Therefore, under Gaiovnik, the challenge is forfeited.
  • Second challenge (status of recipients as “family members” / “victims”). Although the Court notes uncertainty whether this is truly a challenge to “legal authority” or merely the sufficiency of findings, it assumes for argument’s sake that it could be an authority challenge. Even so, Gaiovnik allows out-of-time appeals only if the authority challenge was raised in the district court. It was not. This too is forfeited.

In both respects, the Court declined to reach the merits. It neither decided whether the claimed travel expenses are compensable as a matter of law nor clarified whether an aunt, a cousin, and a stepmother categorically qualify as “family members” under § 611A.01(b). The decision is thus a strong reaffirmation of preservation rules rather than a pronouncement on the substantive contours of allowable restitution or “family member” scope.

Influence of the Cited Precedents

The precedents cited by the Court structure the decision’s logic:

  • Gaiovnik is decisive in two ways: (1) it makes clear that disputes over the type or amount of restitution belong in the district court via the statutory 30-day hearing mechanism, and (2) it creates—but tightly cabins—a narrow exception for authority challenges. Haynes could not benefit from the exception because he raised nothing in the district court.
  • Cloutier delineates what the district court should do when a challenge is timely: assess whether the request consists of compensable categories. The Court references Cloutier to show that the forum and timing matter: the “categories” inquiry is fact-bound and should be addressed below, with affidavits and findings, not on a cold appellate record after forfeiture.
  • Riggs restrains the substantive analysis by limiting the district court to the statutory factors. The opinion cites Riggs to underscore that restitution is a narrowly channeled process and does not invite broader equitable inquiries.
  • Beaulieu, Smith, and Johnson reinforce the preservation theme and the Court’s consistent vocabulary: the failure to invoke the statutory procedure is “forfeiture,” and issues not presented to the district court are generally not reviewed on appeal.
  • Cummings refreshes the Court’s restatement of Gaiovnik’s preservation requirement for authority challenges, eliminating any ambiguity about whether an appellate court might excuse a total failure to object below.

Practical Impact and Forward-Looking Implications

This opinion delivers a pointed message to criminal practitioners and trial courts:

  • Preservation is paramount. Defense counsel must file a written request for a restitution hearing within the statutory 30-day window after sentencing or written notice of the amount—whichever is later. Oral statements of “no objection” on the record, followed by silence, will likely doom any later appellate challenge.
  • Narrow exception firmly policed. Even challenges framed as going to the court’s “legal authority” to order restitution must be raised in the district court to be reviewable on appeal. The exception does not rescue unpreserved issues.
  • Substantive questions remain open. Because the Court did not reach the merits, two recurring issues await authoritative clarification in a preserved case:
    • Whether and to what extent travel expenses for family members to attend court proceedings are compensable “out-of-pocket losses resulting from the crime” under § 611A.04.
    • Whether specific relatives such as aunts, cousins, and step-parents are per se “family members” under § 611A.01(b), or whether that determination is case-specific and fact-driven.
  • Record-building matters. Prosecutors should continue to submit detailed affidavits specifying the causal nexus between claimed losses and the crime, and trial courts should make clear findings when restitution is contested—especially on category and status questions. The statute permits reserving restitution for 90 days to complete the record; parties should use that window strategically.
  • Finality for victims and courts. By reaffirming strict preservation, the Court promotes the finality and enforceability of restitution orders and encourages early, focused litigation of restitution disputes in the trial court.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Restitution hearing deadline. A defendant must challenge restitution in writing within 30 days of sentencing or written notice of the restitution amount (whichever is later). Missing this deadline generally ends the matter for appeal.
  • Forfeiture vs. waiver. Forfeiture is failing to timely assert a right (e.g., not filing the written hearing request). Waiver is intentionally giving up a known right (e.g., affirmatively consenting to a specific award). The Court characterizes Haynes’s lapse as forfeiture.
  • “Type” or “category” of expenses. Some challenges contest whether a claimed expense (e.g., travel, funeral costs, counseling) is the kind that can be compensated through restitution at all. These are quintessentially for the district court under § 611A.045, subd. 3, on a proper record.
  • “Legal authority” exception. An appellate court may consider an untimely challenge only if the defendant’s sole claim is that the district court lacked legal authority to order the restitution at issue—and only if that authority challenge was previously raised in the district court. This is a very narrow path.
  • “Victim” and “family members.” Minnesota law defines “victim” to include family members of a deceased person. The statute does not enumerate all qualifying relations; thus, whether particular relatives qualify can be a litigable question—one that must be raised and developed below.
  • CVRB and reserved restitution. The CVRB reimburses certain expenses to victims; courts may order defendants to repay the CVRB. Courts can “reserve” restitution for up to 90 days to allow submission of affidavits and documentation, but defendants must still file any challenge within 30 days of notice of the specific claimed amounts.

Practice Pointers

  • For defense counsel:
    • Always file a written request for a restitution hearing within 30 days if you have any challenge—even limited or categorical.
    • Avoid global “no objection” statements if any part of restitution may be disputed later; instead, be precise and reserve specific objections on the record.
    • If alleging a lack of legal authority (e.g., recipient is not a “victim”), raise it explicitly and contemporaneously in the district court to preserve Gaiovnik’s narrow exception.
  • For prosecutors:
    • Serve written notice of restitution amounts and file detailed victim affidavits establishing causation and necessity.
    • Where “family member” status might be contested, offer facts supporting the relationship and the connection to loss, and invite express findings.
    • Use the 90-day reservation window to complete the record for all anticipated claims (funeral, travel, counseling, lost wages, etc.).
  • For trial judges:
    • Advise defendants on the 30-day written-hearing requirement and note any express non-objection or reservation on the record.
    • When objections are raised, make explicit findings on categories of expenses, causation, amount, ability to pay, and victim/”family member” status.

Conclusion

State v. Haynes is a firm reassertion of Minnesota’s preservation doctrine in restitution disputes. The Supreme Court held that challenges to the categories or amounts of restitution are forfeited if not timely raised through the statutory mechanism—and that even challenges cast as attacks on the court’s “legal authority” must be made in the district court to qualify for the narrow Gaiovnik exception. By declining to reach the merits, the Court left unresolved important substantive questions about recoverable categories (e.g., travel for court attendance) and the scope of “family member” status. But as a procedural precedent, the message is unmistakable: speak in the district court, and do so on time, or forfeit the right to be heard on appeal.

Case Details

Year: 2025
Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota

Comments