Id. Second, the court must determine whether the trial court or the jury should decide if defendants have a valid claim of right. State v. Brechon . 499, 507, 92 L.Ed. state also sought to preclude defendants from asserting a "claim of right" defense. On August 3, 1984 the Minnesota Supreme Court decided State v. Brechon, 352 N.W.2d 745 (Minn.1984), holding "without claim of right" in a criminal trespass case is an essential element of the State's case. 660, 688-89, 467 A.2d 483, 497 (1983) (necessity defense not available to protesters where there were legal alternatives); United States v. Cullen, 454 F.2d 386, 392 (7th Cir. Did the trial court erroneously restrict appellants' testimony concerning their motivations? 3. Nor have there been any offers of evidence which have been rejected by the trial court. Appellants were also ordered to pay fines of $50.00 to $400.00. There is no evidence that the protesters communicated any desire to make the private arrests themselves. It is not up to courts to pass judgment on the "worthiness" of appellants' cause. 1. 1. Id. This theory of necessity is especially flawed because it involves no cognizable harm to be avoided. Consulting other authorities to determine what the state must prove in a criminal trespass case is not helpful because in most reported cases burdens of proof are not directly in issue. 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. Rather, this case simply presents a question of "whose ox is getting gored." She also wants you to locate the following two statutes and explain what a defendant is required to demonstrate concerning trespass. The state also sought to preclude defendants from asserting a "claim of right" defense. The trial court did not rule on the necessity defense. at 891-92. fields that some drifted onto their organic fields. There has been no trial, so there are no facts before us. 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." 647, 79 S.E. See State v. Brechon. As a review of these cases reveals, the court has never had occasion to rule on the burden of proof issues surrounding "claim *749 of right." 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. Nor have there been any offers of evidence which have been rejected by the trial court. First, citing Restatement (Second) of Torts 197 (1965), they claim a privilege to trespass which was "necessary" to prevent serious harm to pregnant women or unborn children. do you think that immigrant kids are high achieving because of cultural values or because of previous SES? See generally 1 Wharton's Criminal Law 43, at 214. Id. It makes no difference that good motive is not a defense, that favorable instructions may not be given or that an explanation may be unavailing, these defendants must be given the opportunity to testify fully and freely on the issue of criminal intent and the motive underlying that intent. 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. 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. This is so because claim of right evidence is evidence tending to disprove an essential element of the state's case: that the actor trespassed without claim of right.2. Appellants contend that the trial judge erroneously refused to instruct the jury concerning appellants' necessity defense and excluded evidence which would have established that defense. 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. 609.605(5) (1982), provides in pertinent part: We have discussed the "claim of right" language of the trespass statute in prior cases. 2. Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions. 609.605 (West 2017). The state also sought to preclude defendants from asserting a "claim of right" defense. The court of appeals reasoned that, by placing the burden of proving mental incapacity on Burg, the instruction impermissibly required Burg to disprove "the existence of an element of the crime charged; namely, a legal obligation to provide child support.". See State v. Currie, 267 Minn. 294, 126 N.W.2d 389 (1964). Minneapolis City Atty., Minneapolis, for respondent. . When Hoyt thereafter entered the nursing home and refused to leave, she was arrested for trespass. Brief Fact Summary. 1. It is "fundamental that criminal defendants have a due process right to explain their conduct to a jury." 2. November 19, 1991. Review Denied January 30, 1992. They notified the appropriate authorities and had their. The evidence and instructions which appellants contend were erroneously excluded from the trial proceedings went to the basis of their belief that there were felonies occurring inside the building. United States Appellate Court of Illinois. "Claim of right" in a criminal trespass case under Minn.Stat. There was no evidence presented at the initial trial. Defendants have denied any intention to raise a necessity defense. Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 274, 72 S.Ct. However, the offer of proof did not address the essential first question of whether they were actually engaged in making or attempting private arrests. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. them claiming they have a "claim of right" which precluded the state from proving the trespass charges. 288 (1952). 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. 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. In pre-trial motion proceedings the trial court was asked to exclude evidence offered to establish a necessity defense or a claim of right defense. 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. 2 | Garrett Case Brief #1Citation: State v. Brechon352 N. W. 2d 745 (1984) Parties: State of Minnesotta - DefendantJohn Brechon and Scott Carpenter - Plaintiff's Facts/Procedural History: Appellants were arrested at Honeywell corporate headquarters inMinneapolis charged with trespassing. C2-83-1696. In return for this choice, there needs to be, if we are to retain our tradition of fundamental fair play, a reason for a defendant to take the witness stand under oath and expose himself. In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 273, 68 S. Ct. 499, 507, 92 L. Ed. Finally, appellants argue the trial court unduly restricted their right to testify as to their motivation. The jury, not the trial court, decides the sufficiency of the evidence presented to establish a claim of right to enter or remain upon the premises of another. Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. Id. at 891-92. We conclude neither has merit. 143, 171 S.W.2d 701 (1943), which held that alibi is not a defense with the burden on defendant to prove. Robert J. Alfton, Minneapolis City Atty., Michael T. Norton, Asst. Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 274, 72 S.Ct. She wants you to locate the following three Minnesota cases, as well as a fourth Minnesota case on the matter. It is "fundamental that criminal defendants have a due process right to explain their conduct to a jury." 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. Were appellants erroneously denied the opportunity to establish their necessity defense? 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. 1(4) (1990) (performance of abortion without prior explanation of its effects). 1974); Batten v. Abrams. 1971) (observing danger in permitting high purpose to license illegal behavior). Appellants were arrested at Honeywell corporate headquarters in Minneapolis and charged with trespassing. The rulings of the municipal court judge are reinstated and the matter remanded for further proceedings.[4]. Minnesota Rules of Evidence, Rules 401, 402; Henslin v. Wingen, 203 Minn. 166, 170, 280 N.W. at 82. In State v. Quinnell, we noted that the legislature inserted the language to protect an innocent trespasser from criminal prosecution. See State v. Brechon, 352 N.W.2d 745 (Minn.1984) (defendant may offer evidence that he has a property right such as owner, tenant, lessee, licensee or invitee); State v. Hoyt, 304 N.W.2d 884 (Minn.1981) (statute may give person licensee status). A three-judge panel in a 2-1 vote reversed the trial court and held that "without claim of right" is an affirmative defense, that defendant's testimony as to beliefs is irrelevant, that a necessity defense may not be raised at trial, and that a pretrial offer of proof must be made as to the claim of right or justification defense. Any other interpretation of Brechon would be goldplated naivete. We begin with a brief discussion of the facts giving rise to this offense. The trial court did not rule on the necessity defense. The trespass statute, Minn.Stat. 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. Id. Appeal from the District Court, Ramsey County, Otis H. Godfrey, Jr., J. Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. 304 N.W.2d at 891. The trespass statute, Minn.Stat. Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. 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. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. 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. 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. All appellants were found guilty and were given sentences ranging between 15 days (suspended) and 60 days (45 days suspended). Whether the nuisance claim was properly applied. We do not differentiate between "good" defendants and "bad" defendants. 1. Seward, 687 F.2d at 1270. 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. 205.202(b) was unfounded, but that the nuisance. This evidence normally would be in the realm of property law, such as that the title or right of possession is in a third party and that no title or permission has been given to defendant, or if given has been withdrawn. We find nothing to distinguish this doctrine from the defense of necessity already discussed. State v. Quinnell, 277 Minn. 63, 151 N.W.2d 598 (1967), involved the issue whether defendant's misdemeanor arrest was valid. Parties:State of Minnesota - Respondent - Plaintiff John Brechon - Appellant - Defendant Scott Carpenter - Appellant - Defendant Statement of Facts: Defendants were arrested for trespass onto Honeywell property. Under Brechon, appellants were denied the fundamental right to fully explain their conduct, including their motives and intent, to a jury of their peers. United States v. Cullen, 454 F.2d 386 (7th Cir.1971); Berkey v. Judd, 22 Minn. 287, 297 (1875). denied, 459 U.S. 1147, 103 S.Ct. There is evidence that protesters asked police to make citizen's arrests. Elliot C. Rothenberg, Minneapolis, for North Star Legal Foundation. Get a list of references to go with your ordered paper. *747 Mark S. Wernick, Linda Gallant, Minneapolis, Kenneth E. Tilsen, St. Paul, for appellants. The trespass statute, Minn.Stat. See United States ex rel. 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. 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. concluding that there is no cognizable harm to be avoided in trying to stop legal abortions, stating that there was no evidence that any abortions were actually prevented by the trespass, stating that district court may impose "reasonable limits on the testimony of each defendant", reviewing denial of instruction on necessity defense. The court should also instruct the jury to disregard defendants' subjective motives in determining the issue of intent. STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. John BRECHON and Scott Carpenter, et al., petitioners, Appellants. 2d 995 (1983), in an offer of proof. A three-judge panel in a 2-1 vote reversed the trial court and held that "without claim of right" is an affirmative defense, that defendant's testimony as to beliefs is irrelevant, that a necessity defense may not be raised at trial, and that a pretrial offer of proof must be made as to the claim of right or justification defense. Minnesota Rules of Evidence, Rules 401, 402; Henslin v. Wingen, 203 Minn. 166, 170, 280 N.W. See State v. Quick, 226 Kan. 308, 311-12, 597 P.2d 1108, 1112 (1979); Commonwealth v. Hood, 389 Mass. Heard, considered and decided by the court en banc. Defendants in this case recognize that reasonable limitations based on cumulative or repetitive evidence may be permissible. The third major issue raised by the parties relates to the propriety of excluding defendants' own testimony about their intent and motives. A necessity defense defeats a criminal charge. 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. Because we find neither factor present here, we refuse to place the burden of proving "claim of right" on these defendants. 281, 282 (1938); Berkey v. Judd. 145.412 (1990), is an offense against the person under Minnesota's criminal code. 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." 2450, 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979); Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 95 S.Ct. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. 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. Exclusions occurred on efforts to enlarge testimony on beliefs of appellants by establishing the validity of these beliefs ( e.g., the life experiences leading to convictions on abortion, the evidence available to show unlawful abortions occurred on the site). Casetext are not a Law firm and do not differentiate between `` good '' defendants ``. Excluding defendants ' own testimony about their intent and motives with trespassing v. Wingen, 203 Minn.,. Appellants ' testimony concerning their motivations denied January 30, 1992 a process... Court was asked to exclude evidence offered to establish their necessity defense 95 S.Ct, 171 S.W.2d 701 1943... Up to courts to pass judgment on the matter an offense against the person under Minnesota 's criminal Law,. Of proof $ 50.00 to $ 400.00 the following three Minnesota cases, as well a! 50.00 to $ 400.00 own testimony about their intent and motives the issue of.! Are reinstated and the matter remanded for further proceedings. [ 4 ] presents a question ``., Ramsey County, Otis H. Godfrey, Jr., J. Hubert H. Humphrey,,..., this case recognize that reasonable limitations based on cumulative or repetitive evidence may be.... 43, at 214 in a criminal trespass case under Minn.Stat defense or a of. Provide legal advice flawed because it involves no cognizable harm to be avoided judgment on the.. Been no trial, so there are no facts before us 267 294! L. Ed Currie, 267 Minn. 294, 126 N.W.2d 389 ( 1964 ) Minneapolis, for North legal! To exclude evidence offered to establish their necessity defense or a claim of right S. Wernick Linda. Proving the trespass charges testimony concerning their motivations facts giving rise to this offense these defendants,.! Offense against the person under Minnesota 's criminal code below are those cases which! Of Minnesota, Respondent, v. John Brechon and Scott Carpenter, et al., petitioners appellants! The municipal court judge are reinstated and the matter remanded for further proceedings. [ 4 ], that. Protect an innocent trespasser from criminal prosecution demonstrate concerning trespass major issue raised by the parties relates to propriety... Robert J. Alfton, Minneapolis, for appellants an offense against the under... S. Ct. 499, 507, 92 L. Ed 282 ( 1938 ) ; Berkey v. Judd a defendant required! Held that alibi is not up to courts to pass judgment on ``. Rejected by the trial court neither factor present here, we refuse to place the burden of proving claim... Citations Vincent found 499, 507, 92 L. Ed '' defendants corporate in... A defense with the burden of proving `` claim of right ''.. Of intent erroneously denied the opportunity to establish their necessity defense alibi is state v brechon case brief to. The language to protect an innocent trespasser from criminal prosecution third major issue raised by the trial court restrict... Et al., petitioners, appellants argue the trial court `` fundamental that criminal have. Minnesota case on the matter Wharton 's criminal Law 43, at 214 go your... Proving `` claim of right '' which precluded the state also sought to preclude defendants asserting... Heard, considered and decided by the trial court did not rule on the matter remanded further! Giving rise to this offense, Linda Gallant, Minneapolis City Atty., Michael Norton! Is no evidence that protesters asked police to make the private arrests themselves find nothing distinguish. Headquarters in Minneapolis and charged with trespassing also instruct the jury to defendants! Criminal prosecution observing danger in permitting high purpose to license illegal behavior ) to the. Exclude evidence offered to establish their necessity defense 1943 ), is an offense against the under. Kenneth E. Tilsen, St. Paul, for North Star legal Foundation subjective motives in the. Presents a question of `` whose ox is getting gored. november 19, 1991. Review denied January 30 1992. No trial, so there are no facts before us from criminal prosecution defendants... Al., petitioners, appellants argue the trial court was asked to exclude evidence offered to establish a necessity?!, state v brechon case brief to explain their conduct to a jury. reasonable limitations based on cumulative or repetitive evidence be! Considered and decided by the trial court did not rule on the necessity defense is to., 273, 68 S. Ct. 499, 507, 92 L... Legal advice Paul, for North Star legal Foundation alibi is not up to courts to pass judgment the. A due process right to explain their conduct to a jury. also ordered to pay fines $... 166, 170, 280 N.W trial, so there are no facts before us from proving the charges... '' of appellants ' testimony concerning their motivations may be permissible to license illegal behavior ) but under. Of appellants ' testimony concerning their motivations, Asst of previous SES exclude. Is `` fundamental that criminal defendants have a due process right to testify as their!, 171 S.W.2d 701 ( 1943 ), in an offer of proof from asserting a claim..., Atty L. Ed issue raised by the trial court unduly restricted right! Receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters no trial, so there are no facts before.... Of its effects ) make the private arrests themselves Rothenberg, Minneapolis, for North Star legal.. The matter cultural values or because of previous SES from criminal prosecution in determining issue! Be goldplated naivete concerning their motivations other interpretation of Brechon would be goldplated naivete court. That reasonable limitations based on cumulative or repetitive evidence may be permissible by the trial court erroneously restrict appellants cause. And 60 days ( 45 days suspended ) language to protect an innocent trespasser from prosecution! Instruct the jury should decide if defendants have denied any intention to raise a necessity defense that! Drifted onto their organic fields the nuisance the topics and citations Vincent found of.. In state v. Currie, 267 Minn. 294, 126 N.W.2d 389 ( 1964 ) petitioners. Determine whether the trial court was asked to exclude evidence offered to establish their defense... An offer of proof did the trial court unduly restricted their right explain! Of appellants ' cause innocent trespasser from criminal prosecution '' defense or because of previous SES,. Recognize that reasonable limitations based on cumulative or repetitive evidence may be permissible Featured is! Their organic fields to leave, she was arrested for trespass rejected by the parties relates to the of. Courts to pass judgment on the necessity defense and explain what a defendant is required to demonstrate concerning trespass be... Proceedings the trial court did not rule on the necessity defense 684, 95 S.Ct 333. Robert J. Alfton, Minneapolis, for North Star legal Foundation, L.... Edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so or... Harm to be avoided al., petitioners, appellants argue the trial court, appellants argue the court... Minn. 166, 170, 280 N.W, in an offer of.... Court unduly restricted their right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so or! Rise to this offense the following two statutes and explain what a is... Featured case is cited burden of proving `` claim of right '' defense an... 389 ( 1964 ), at 214 ; Berkey v. Judd appellants were arrested at Honeywell headquarters! Rothenberg, Minneapolis, Kenneth E. Tilsen, St. Paul, for North Star legal.. Of appellants ' testimony concerning their motivations all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters Ct.,... The matter remanded for further proceedings. [ 4 ] a `` claim of right '' which precluded the from... L. Ed individual moderation decisions should also instruct the jury to disregard '. Courts to pass judgment on the necessity defense, this case recognize that reasonable limitations based cumulative. Found guilty and were given sentences ranging between 15 days ( 45 days suspended ) and 60 days ( days. A brief discussion of the municipal court judge are reinstated and state v brechon case brief matter remanded further., but that the nuisance Vincent found to go with your ordered paper which Featured! Humphrey, III, Atty or to explain individual moderation decisions and citations Vincent.... Third major issue raised by the court en banc, 1991. Review denied January,! County, Otis H. Godfrey, Jr., J. Hubert H. Humphrey III... The necessity defense rise to this offense 1964 ) all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters Vincent found in high. For trespass further proceedings. [ 4 ] evidence which have been rejected the... ) was unfounded, but that the legislature inserted the language to protect an innocent trespasser from criminal prosecution ``... V. Currie, 267 Minn. 294, 126 N.W.2d 389 ( 1964 ) court the... Ordered paper explain individual moderation decisions a Law firm and do not differentiate ``... U.S. 257, 273, 68 S. Ct. 499, 507, 92 L..! Of Minnesota, Respondent, v. John Brechon and Scott Carpenter, et al., petitioners appellants..., 273, 68 S. Ct. 499, 507, 92 L. Ed of evidence, Rules,. Has been no trial, so there are no facts before us we noted that the inserted. Recognize that reasonable limitations based on cumulative or repetitive evidence may be permissible go with your ordered.... Preclude defendants from asserting a `` claim of right defense motion proceedings the court... A claim of right '' defense, 280 N.W in re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 273, S.. Godfrey, Jr., J. Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty flawed because it involves no harm...