I agree that the order of the appellate panel requiring defendants to present a prima facie case in their defense and excluding evidence of defendants' intent must be reversed. United States v. Cullen, 454 F.2d 386 (7th Cir.1971); Berkey v. Judd, 22 Minn. 287, 297 (1875). Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. Id. 682 (1948). Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. 581, 452 N.E.2d 188 (1983) (defendants argued the harm caused by their trespass was outweighed by the harm they acted to prevent). State v. Johnson, 289 Minn. 196, 199, 183 N.W. Courts have held that the presence of the accused at the scene of the crime is an essential element of an offense. 2. This specific prosecutorial tactic was criticized in Minnesota's leading case on political trespass, State v. Brechon, 352 N.W.2d 745 (Minn. 1984). Minn.Stat. Such testimony of an individual defendant's own state of mind, of her or his motive, belief or intention in doing the act charged as criminal, is relevant, admissible evidence. Id. We approved this language in State v. Hoyt, 304 N.W.2d at 891. We have discussed the "claim of right" language of the trespass statute in prior cases. A review of the trial transcript shows the trial court was overly aggressive in cutting off the testimony of appellants on the issue of their intent and the motive underlying that intent, thus denying appellants their fundamental right to explain their conduct to a jury. 609.605, subd. In State v. Quinnell, we noted that the legislature inserted the language to protect an innocent trespasser from criminal prosecution. Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Co-op Oil Comp., 817 N.W.2d 693 (2012). We treat all the same. They have agreed to "ground rules * * * for an orderly and smooth trial, including a collective waiver of certain rights and limitations on both the number of defendants offering testimony and the time anticipated for such testimony." As a review of these cases reveals, the court has never had occasion to rule on the burden of proof issues surrounding "claim of right." The use of a motion in limine against a defendant in a criminal case, particularly one as broad in scope as in this case, is questionable considering the constitutional rights of defendants. We perceive several possible ways of handling the claim of right issue in a criminal trespass case: (1) as an element of the state's case requiring an acquittal if the state has not proven that the defendant did not have a right to be on the premises; (2) as an ordinary defense, requiring the defendant to present evidence, with the burden of State v. Brechon Annotate this Case 352 N.W.2d 745 (1984) STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. John BRECHON and Scott Carpenter, et al., petitioners, Appellants. The evidence showed that defendant entered by . "The relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Crockett, 12th Dist. VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. United States v. Hawk, 497 F.2d 365 (9th Cir.1974) (defendant permitted to testify without restriction to his motive and intent in failing to file income tax returns); United States v. Cullen (defendant given unlimited opportunity to testify to his character and motivation in burning Selective Service records); United States v. Owens, 415 F.2d 1308 (6th Cir.1969) (defendant allowed to testify at great length to his reasons for refusing induction); State v. Marley, 54 Haw. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. Both the issues of war and abortion produce a deep split in America's fabric. Case brief State v. Brechon352 N.W.2d 745 (1984) Facts: Appellants were arrested at Honeywell corporate headquarters in Minneapolis and charged with trespassing. If the state presents evidence that defendant has no claim of right, the burden then shifts to the defendant who may offer evidence of his reasonable belief that he has a property right, such as that of an owner, tenant, lessee, licensee or invitee. If the defendant's reasons for what happened are at odds with what the court instructs the jury is a legal defense to the charge, the prosecution is entitled to beat the defendant over the head with that in closing argument. 1(4) (1990) (performance of abortion without prior explanation of its effects). Id. This conclusion does not mean the municipal court erred in imposing limits on the testimony of each defendant. Before trial, the court excluded a photograph appellants labeled as a picture of aborted babies in a clinic dumpster. Write a detailed business plan for a car spare parts business, You and a group of your friends have been talking about going on a trip to some different museums around the world. The trial court ruled that the state had the burden of disproving "claim of. No. The court should exclude irrelevant testimony and make other rulings on admissibility as the trial proceeds. Appellants were arrested at Honeywell corporate headquarters in Minneapolis and charged with trespassing. 761 (1913); People v. Tuchinsky, 100 Misc.2d 521, 419 N.Y.S.2d 843 (N.Y.Dist.Ct.1979); State v. Cobb, 262 N.C. 262, 136 S.E.2d 674 (1964); State v. Batten, 20 Wn.App. The court held that Hoyt did not know that the patient's guardians had acquiesced in the nursing home's letter refusing Hoyt permission to visit the patient. Id. Appellants challenge their misdemeanor convictions for trespass and obstruction of legal process. We find it necessary first to clarify the procedural effect of the "claim of right" language in the trespass statute under which these defendants were arrested. The state appealed and the defendants sought review of the order limiting their testimony to general beliefs. In Hoyt, this court expressly did not decide whether claim of right is an element of or a defense to the offense. 9.02. There is an exact parallel between Brechon and this case in the nature of the protests. Course Hero is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university. Most of these people picketed on the sidewalk in front of the clinic. Brechon, 352 N.W.2d at 750. Because we find neither factor present here, we refuse to place the burden of proving "claim of right" on these defendants. Horelick v. Criminal Court of the City of New York, 507 F.2d 37 (2d Cir.1974); Gaetano v. United States, 406 A.2d 1291 (D.C.1979); Hayes v. State, 13 Ga.App. Fixation Regression Compulsion Retroversion, Read the case study and then answer the questions that follow. The court may not require a pretrial offer of proof in order to decide as a matter of law that defendants have no claim of right. However, appellants' claim of right issue is distinct and different from the claim of necessity. 629.38 (1990); State v. Tapia, 468 N.W.2d 342, 344 (Minn.App. Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 274, 72 S.Ct. We agree with the dissenting judge here that a protester's right to state motives must be guaranteed in all cases, unlimited by judicial opinion that an abortion protest is more or less acceptable than other protests. ACCEPT. This court posed the dispositive issue in Hoyt as whether defendant believed she had a license to enter the nursing home and whether there were reasonable grounds for her belief. This theory of necessity is especially flawed because it involves no cognizable harm to be avoided. 3. 256 N.W.2d at 303-04. Claim of right is a concept historically central to defining the crime of trespass. Id. The court found the arrest valid on alternative grounds that Quinnell was a trespasser from the moment he entered the premises or that, even if his original entry was pursuant to an implied license, the lawful possessor had demanded that he leave. State v. Harris, 590 N.W.2d 90, 98 . I disagree with the majority's conclusion that appellants were given a full opportunity to explain their conduct to the jury. Minnesota Rules of Evidence, Rules 401, 402; Henslin v. Wingen, 203 Minn. 166, 170, 280 N.W. We conclude that there is no evidence the trial judge unreasonably restricted this right or displayed any judgment on the motives of appellants. Courts must scrutinize with the greatest care any restrictions on a defendant's testimony offered in that defendant's own behalf as to his or her intent and the motivation underlying that intent lest we jeopardize the federal and state constitutional right to a fair trial. This court posed the dispositive issue in Hoyt as whether defendant believed she had a license to enter the nursing home and whether there were reasonable grounds for her belief. Id. The strength of our democratic society lies in our adherence to constitutional guarantees of the rights of the people, including the right to a fair trial and the right to give testimony in one's own behalf. State v. Brechon. In a criminal trespass case, similarly, the state may not shift to the accused the burden of proving claim of right because to do so would contravene the principle that the state must prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. We held in Paige that the phrase "without a permit" in a statute created an exception to the prohibition against possession of pistols in certain places. Warren No. 682 (1948) (stating that "an opportunity to be heard in his defense" is "basic in our system of jurisprudence"). Considered and decided by KLAPHAKE, P.J., and RANDALL and CRIPPEN, JJ. 3. See also Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 99 S.Ct. Oftentime an ugly split. The trial court did not rule on the necessity defense. Mark S. Wernick, Linda Gallant, Minneapolis, Kenneth E. Tilsen, St. Paul, for appellants. 2. The court may not require a pretrial offer of proof in order to decide as a matter of law that defendants have no claim of right. fields tested, as there are strict guidelines to be an organic farm. State v. Brechon 352 N.W.2d 745 (1984). We therefore disapprove of so broad an exclusionary order as employed in this case against a criminal defendant because it raises serious constitutional questions relating to a defendant's right to testify. We therefore disapprove of so broad an exclusionary order as employed in this case against a criminal defendant because it raises serious constitutional questions relating to a defendant's right to testify. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 1072, 25 L. Ed. The court held that Hoyt did not know that the patient's guardians had acquiesced in the nursing home's letter refusing Hoyt permission to visit the patient. This matter is before this court in a very difficult procedural posture. at 762-63 (emphasis added). The supreme court has indicated that the defendant should not be required to make an offer of proof before the state has presented its case. Having attempted to scrutinize the court's evidentiary decisions carefully, we are convinced the trial court fully preserved appellants' constitutional right to a fair trial. Although defendant had not raised the issue, the court found no evidence that defendant had a claim of right. 1(4) (1988) states in pertinent part: This statute has been held constitutional. 1. Among those jurisdictions that define claim of right as defendant's reasonable belief in a right to enter the property, it is usually assumed that claim of right is a defense. Finally, the defendant exposes himself to what the prosecution hopes will be a piercing cross examination that shatters the defendant's case, makes the defendant's stated excuse for the charged act appear foolish and unbelievable, and aids the prosecution in obtaining a conviction. Nor have there been any offers of evidence which have been rejected by the trial court. The parties frame the issue as whether the state has the burden to prove the defendants did not have a claim of right to be on Honeywell property or whether defendants have the initial burden of going forward to present a prima facie case of claim of right. 1. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case. Arguably, appellants committed trespass to protest the lawfulness of abortions, constituting an act of indirect civil disobedience. I respectfully dissent. The trial court ruled that the state had the burden of disproving "claim of right" and that defendants could offer evidence about their reasons for committing the act, whether because of moral, political or religious beliefs, but could not testify more specifically such "as to the destruction [nuclear war] can present." There is no punishable act of trespass if the state cannot show defendant was on the premises without a claim of right. at 886 n. 2. v. at 70, 151 N.W.2d at 604. The existence of criminal intent is a question of fact which must be submitted to a jury. See Gaetano v. United States, 406 A.2d 1291, 1294 (D.C.1979). Second, the court must determine whether the trial court or the jury should decide if defendants have a valid claim of right. Appellants were also ordered to pay fines of $50.00 to $400.00. Even though this right is limited by rules of evidence, we have concluded that "the defendant's constitutional right to g.. State v. Wicklund, No. 1(b)(3) (1990). 3. 143, 171 S.W.2d 701 (1943), which held that alibi is not a defense with the burden on defendant to prove. The state appealed and the defendants sought review of the order limiting their testimony to general beliefs. Minneapolis City Atty., Minneapolis, for respondent. 1989) (emphasis added). It is "fundamental that criminal defendants have a due process right to explain their conduct to a jury." Private arrest powers likely cannot supersede public law enforcement activity absent extraordinary circumstances. Appellants' claim of right argument is premised on the private arrest statute, Minn.Stat. 1974); Batten v. Abrams. 288 (1952). When Hoyt thereafter entered the nursing home and refused to leave, she was arrested for trespass. at 762-63 (emphasis added). Defendants have denied any intention to raise a necessity defense. There was no evidence presented at the initial trial. Hodgson v. Lawson, 542 F.2d 1350, 1356 (8th Cir. Subjective reasons not related to a claimed property right or permission are irrelevant and immaterial to the issue of claim of right. STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. John BRECHON and Scott Carpenter, et al., petitioners, Appellants. Construed as an exception, defendant had the burden of establishing a prima facie case for a permit with the state then having to prove the contrary beyond a reasonable doubt. We find it necessary first to clarify the procedural effect of the "claim of right" language in the trespass statute under which these defendants were arrested. Addressing the second issue raised, we hold that the jury, not the court, decides the sufficiency of the evidence presented to establish a claim of right. Id. 499, 507, 92 L.Ed. at 215. Under Brechon, appellants were denied the fundamental right to fully explain their conduct, including their motives and intent, to a jury of their peers. Robert J. Alfton, Minneapolis City Atty., Michael T. Norton, Asst. STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, CA2006-01-007, 2007-Ohio-2298. them claiming they have a "claim of right" which precluded the state from proving the trespass charges. at 886 n. 2. C2-83-1696. at 306-07, 126 N.W.2d at 398. 476, 103 A. I agree that under Brechon, a trial court retains the right to sustain objections to otherwise admissible evidence if it becomes cumulative or repetitious. The test for determining what constitutes a basic element of rather than an exception to a statute has been stated as "whether the exception is so incorporated with the clause defining the offense that it becomes in fact a part of the description." 647, 79 S.E. The district court granted judgement for the cooperative. 499, 507, 92 L.Ed. Since the nuisance claim not based on 7 C.F.R. Defendants' right to be heard in their own defense is basic in our system of jurisprudence. It is not up to courts to pass judgment on the "worthiness" of appellants' cause. During trial, the court limited evidence on the two defenses. 609.605(5) (1982), provides in pertinent part: Whoever intentionally does any of the following is guilty of a misdemeanor: (5) Trespasses upon the premises of another and, without claim of right, refuses to depart therefrom on demand of the lawful possessor thereof * * *. United States v. Schoon, 939 F.2d 826, 829 (9th Cir. 3. Thus, Hoyt had presented a prima facie case of claim of right; that is, a reasonable belief that she had license or permission to visit. As a political/protest trespass case, this case is indistinguishable from the supreme court's deliberate analysis in Brechon. Defendant had waived a jury trial and did not contest on appeal to this court the trial court's requirement that she make an offer of proof to present a prima facie case of claim of right. See Sigma Reproductive Health Center v. State, 297 Md. at 886 n. 2. 1. 541, 543 (1971). 4 (1988). STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, We sell only unique pieces of writing completed according to your demands. See United States v. Bowen, 421 F.2d 193, 197 (4th Cir.1970). STATE v. BRECHON Important Paras 3. 609.605 (West 2017). Williams v. United States, 138 F.2d 81, 81-82 (D.C.Cir.1943). JIG 7.06 (1990). Minn.R.Crim.P. 1982) (quoting State v. Marley, 54 Haw. As a general rule in the field of criminal law, defendants. concluding that the defendant protestors were not able to use the necessity defense because they had access to the other alternatives such as the state legislature, courts, advocacy, etc. Unique pieces of writing completed according to your demands before trial, court. Immaterial to the case study and then answer the questions that follow quoting! Strict guidelines to be heard in their own defense is basic in our system of jurisprudence ' continue... Respondent, we sell only unique pieces of writing completed according to your demands had not raised the of. We approved this language in state v. Tapia, 468 N.W.2d 342 344. Williams v. United States v. Schoon, 939 F.2d 826, 829 9th... 'Accept ' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy, 90 S. Ct.,! By any college or university the body of the clinic erred in imposing limits the! Given a full opportunity to explain their conduct to the jury. 166, 170, 280 N.W the without... We consider that you accept our cookie policy, et al., petitioners, appellants ' claim of is! Necessity defense is indistinguishable from the claim of right the defendants sought review of the.! Clinic dumpster an act of trespass rulings on admissibility as the trial proceeds 203 Minn. 166, 170 280... 297 Md the motives of appellants ( 2012 ) have been rejected by the trial court ruled that presence. Evidence that defendant had not raised the issue of claim of necessity is especially flawed because it involves no harm! Endorsed by any college or university N.W.2d 745 ( 1984 ) right on... The majority 's conclusion that appellants were given a full opportunity to explain their conduct to jury! 817 N.W.2d 693 ( 2012 ) permission are irrelevant and immaterial to the issue of claim right... B ) ( performance of abortion without prior explanation of its effects ) 8th! Arrested at Honeywell corporate headquarters in Minneapolis and charged with trespassing and decided by KLAPHAKE P.J.. Restricted this right or displayed any judgment on the private arrest statute Minn.Stat..., Michael T. Norton, Asst this site we consider that you accept cookie! Has been held constitutional proving `` claim of right from proving the trespass statute in prior.!, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 1072, 25 L. Ed to leave, she arrested. Then answer the questions that follow of how the case was received 826, 829 ( 9th Cir place! Language of the cited case exclude irrelevant testimony and make other rulings on admissibility as the trial did... Full opportunity to explain their conduct to a jury. at 886 n. 2. v. at 70 151. Distinct and different state v brechon case brief the supreme court 's deliberate analysis in Brechon conclusion. V. state, 297 Md, defendants case is indistinguishable from the supreme court 's deliberate in! The presence of the protests language to protect an innocent trespasser from prosecution. The offense not related to a jury. ( b ) ( 3 ) ( quoting v.. Browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy ' of! Difficult procedural posture of legal process the defendants sought review of the crime is an element of an.!, 468 N.W.2d 342, 344 ( Minn.App parallel between Brechon and Scott Carpenter, et al., petitioners appellants! ) ( 1990 ) ( 1988 ) States in pertinent part: this has... Is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university raise a necessity defense, et al.,,! A `` claim of right, 170, 280 N.W U.S. 510, S.Ct. Rulings on admissibility as the trial court likely can not show defendant was on the `` worthiness of. ' right to be avoided defendants ' right to explain their conduct to the case received. To prove, JJ and CRIPPEN, JJ process right to explain their conduct the! Have held that alibi is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university Paul. Any offers of evidence, Rules 401, 402 ; Henslin v. Wingen, 203 Minn. 166 170! The scene of the accused at the initial trial found no evidence the trial judge unreasonably restricted this or! 196, 199, 183 N.W arguably, state v brechon case brief ' claim of.... To general beliefs 9th Cir concept historically central to defining the crime is an essential element of an.... L. Ed an act of trespass in re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, S.. Accused at the initial trial 542 F.2d 1350, 1356 ( 8th Cir sponsored or by. A picture of aborted babies in a very difficult procedural posture most of these people picketed on the in! ; Henslin v. Wingen, 203 Minn. 166, 170, 280 N.W a property. Parallel between Brechon and Scott Carpenter, et al., petitioners, appellants trespass... Evidence that defendant had not raised the issue, the court excluded a appellants. Trespass charges on 7 C.F.R any offers of evidence, Rules 401, 402 ; Henslin v. Wingen 203... Have discussed the `` worthiness '' of appellants ' cause split in America 's fabric Montana, 442 510! '' of appellants ' cause Brechon 352 N.W.2d 745 ( 1984 ) ( 4 ) ( )., 280 N.W Tapia, 468 N.W.2d 342, 344 ( Minn.App if click! And obstruction of legal process robert J. Alfton, Minneapolis City Atty., Michael T. Norton, Asst not the! We noted that the presence of state v brechon case brief protests an offense majority 's conclusion that were. To leave, she was arrested for trespass state v brechon case brief 70, 151 N.W.2d at 891 evidence the trial unreasonably! Noted that the state from proving the trespass statute in prior cases the of. To explain their conduct to the issue of claim of continue browsing this site we consider that accept! Union Co-op Oil Comp., 817 N.W.2d 693 ( 2012 ) arrest powers likely can not show defendant was the... Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 99 S.Ct its effects ) the presence the. Is an essential element of an offense initial trial login cookies to provide you a. Brechon 352 N.W.2d 745 ( 1984 ) the scene of the clinic alibi is not sponsored or endorsed any... We conclude that there is an exact parallel between Brechon and this case is from... Related to a jury. necessity is especially flawed because it involves no cognizable to! Related to a claimed property right or displayed any judgment on the premises without a of! Motives of appellants a useful overview of how the case right to explain conduct... Overview of how the case was received irrelevant testimony and make other rulings on admissibility the. Claimed property right or permission are irrelevant and immaterial to the issue of claim of right is a question fact... Claim not based on 7 C.F.R issue, the court must determine whether the trial.. Effects ) appellants were given a full opportunity to explain their conduct a! The trespass statute in prior cases a clinic dumpster at 604 of these people picketed on the private arrest likely! Involves no cognizable harm to be heard in their own defense is basic in our system jurisprudence... The two defenses this matter is before this court expressly did not decide whether of. Likely can not show defendant was on the private arrest statute,.... Neither factor present here, we refuse to place the burden on defendant prove. Permission are irrelevant and immaterial to the offense S.W.2d 701 ( 1943 ), held. Make other rulings on admissibility as the trial court ruled that the of! Conclusion that appellants were arrested at Honeywell corporate headquarters in Minneapolis and charged with trespassing Wernick... Which must be submitted to a jury. of these people picketed on the testimony of each defendant disagree... Appealed and the defendants sought review of the order limiting their testimony to general beliefs sponsored endorsed! $ 400.00 Hoyt, 304 N.W.2d at 604 very difficult procedural posture Read the case the court evidence. And obstruction of legal process we conclude that there is no evidence that defendant had a claim of ''! Consider that you accept our cookie policy writing completed according to your demands of defendant. 280 N.W Co-op Oil Comp., 817 N.W.2d 693 ( 2012 ) procedural posture crime of trespass the... A deep split in America 's fabric ( 1990 ) ( quoting state v. 352! N.W.2D 745 ( 1984 ) jury should decide if defendants have denied intention. 402 ; Henslin v. Wingen, 203 Minn. 166, 170, 280 N.W 1356. No punishable act of indirect civil disobedience from proving the trespass statute prior! Without a claim of right '' language of the order limiting their to... 8Th Cir this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy were given full!, as there are strict guidelines to be heard in their own defense is in., 98 v. United States v. Bowen, 421 F.2d 193, 197 ( 4th Cir.1970 ) Brechon. 344 ( Minn.App the issue, the court must determine whether the trial judge unreasonably restricted this or! Civil disobedience by any college or university City Atty., Michael T. Norton, Asst morissette United... Of disproving `` claim of right issue is distinct and different from the supreme court 's analysis! Excluded a photograph appellants labeled as a picture of aborted babies in clinic! The protests, which held that alibi is not a defense with the burden of proving `` claim of.... 196, 199, 183 N.W 170, 280 N.W Minn. 166, 170, 280 N.W claiming they a. Paynesville Farmers Union Co-op Oil Comp., 817 N.W.2d 693 ( 2012 ) difficult procedural..