State of Minnesota v. Roger Benedict Schmid
2015 Minn. LEXIS 73
Minn.2015Background
- DNR officer found Roger Schmid sitting in a camouflaged folding blind on his ATV in an open field during deer season, wearing blaze orange and with a loaded gun beside him.
- Officer learned Schmid claimed to have killed a deer the prior evening and returned to retrieve it; license site-validation tag was missing and motor-vehicle hunting permit was expired.
- Schmid gave shifting explanations (hunting party, nature watching, coyote hunting, retrieving a tagged carcass); officer issued citation for taking deer without a license (Minn. Stat. § 97B.301, subd. 1).
- At trial the court instructed the jury using the statutory definition of “taking” (Minn. Stat. § 97A.015, subd. 47 — includes “pursuing” and “attempting to take”); jury convicted Schmid.
- Schmid appealed arguing “take” in § 97B.301 should be the common-law definition (possession/control), and alternatively that his conduct did not amount to statutory “taking.” The Minnesota Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether “take” in Minn. Stat. § 97B.301 is defined by the statutory definition of “taking” in § 97A.015 or by the narrower common-law meaning (possession/control) | State: “take” incorporates the statutory definition of “taking” used across the game‑and‑fish laws | Schmid: “take” means actual acquisition of possession/control (common law), so he did not violate § 97B.301 | The statutory definition of “taking” in § 97A.015, subd. 47 applies to “take” in § 97B.301 |
| Whether Schmid’s conduct (sitting in blind on ATV, blaze orange, loaded gun, shifting explanations) amounted to “pursuing” deer under the statutory definition | State: the aggregate conduct shows pursuit or an attempt to take deer | Schmid: he was merely waiting to retrieve a previously killed/tagged carcass; conduct was not pursuit or an attempt | A reasonable jury could conclude Schmid was “pursuing” or “attempting to take” deer; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. O’Heron, 250 Minn. 83, 83 N.W.2d 785 (Minn. 1957) (applied statutory definition of "taking" to uphold conviction for attempt to take waterfowl)
- State v. Peck, 773 N.W.2d 768 (Minn. 2009) (standard of de novo review for statutory interpretation)
- State v. Simion, 745 N.W.2d 830 (Minn. 2008) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- Wis. Citizens Concerned for Cranes & Doves v. Wis. Dep’t of Natural Res., 677 N.W.2d 612 (Wis. 2004) (contextual use of “take/taking” in game laws supports treating “take” as including pursuits and attempts)