State of Minnesota v. Dennis Lowell Halverson, A15-1502

Dennis Halverson lived in a condominium owned by his mother in the Elm Creek Court Homes association and repeatedly delivered written complaint letters directly to neighbor A.K., the association president.
Despite being asked to send complaints to management (Omega) and after A.K. tried to avoid contact, Halverson came to A.K.’s unit many times in early December, including pounding and multiple ringings.
A.K. reported him to police; officers issued a trespass notice directing him to stay off A.K.’s property and later cited him for misdemeanor trespass after he returned and approached her porch the same day.
Association documents defined units, common elements, and limited common elements and described limited common elements as designated for the exclusive use of a particular unit (including front door, walkway, porch).
At trial the issue was whether A.K. had a possessory or ownership-based claim of right to the limited common elements and whether Halverson had a bona fide belief in a claim of right to be there when he returned after being told to leave.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether A.K. had a claim of right to exclude others from limited common elements adjacent to her unit	State: Association rules and ownership give A.K. a possessory/part-owner interest allowing exclusion	Halverson: A.K. lacked exclusive claim to those limited common elements	Held for State: limited common elements are designated for exclusive use and give sufficient possessory interest to exclude others
Whether State proved Halverson acted “without claim of right” when he returned after being told to leave	State: notice and lack of any ownership/possessory evidence from Halverson support element	Halverson: he believed he had a right to be there (claim of right/belief defense)	Held for State: Halverson offered no evidence of ownership, tenancy, or bona fide claim of right; State met its burden
Whether defendant’s belief in a claim of right, if any, was bona fide	State: no evidence of circumstances showing a bona fide belief	Halverson: asserted belief that he had right to be on property	Held for State: claim of right defense requires bona fide belief; here defendant produced no evidence of such belief
Sufficiency of evidence for trespass conviction	State: evidence viewed in light most favorable to verdict supports conviction	Halverson: insufficient evidence to prove lack of claim of right	Held for State: appellate court affirms conviction under reasonable-evidence standard

State v. Palmer, 803 N.W.2d 727 (Minn. 2011) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
State v. Struzyk, 869 N.W.2d 280 (Minn. 2015) (prosecution bears burden to prove each offense element)
State v. Brechon, 352 N.W.2d 745 (Minn. 1984) (state must prove defendant lacked claim of right; burden shifts to defendant to show bona fide belief)
State v. Hoyt, 304 N.W.2d 884 (Minn. 1981) (claim-of-right defense requires actual and sincere belief)
State v. Quinnell, 151 N.W.2d 598 (Minn. 1967) (false claims without circumstances indicating innocent purpose are not a defense)
State v. Zimmer, 478 N.W.2d 764 (Minn. App. 1991) (lawful possessor can exclude others; relevant to trespass)
Minch Family LLLP v. Buffalo-Red River Watershed Dist., 628 F.3d 960 (8th Cir. 2010) (Minnesota trespass elements include rightful possession and unlawful entry)
Poppler v. Wright Hennepin Co-op Elec. Ass’n, 834 N.W.2d 527 (Minn. App. 2013) (tort of trespass centers on interference with exclusive possession)