State v. Fitman, 811 N.W.2d 120

Tammy Fitman and M.B. are co-parenting two children after a 2005 divorce with Fitman having physical custody and M.B. visitation rights.
The divorce decree set a visitation schedule that was not strictly followed by either parent.
In March 2010, a dispute over claiming the children as dependents led to a temporary denial of visitation.
Police were called on March 12 when M.B. attempted to exercise visitation, but the Fitmans refused to release the children.
A second incident on April 2 involved police at the home after another visitation dispute; again, the children were present but not seen by police, and no charges were filed at that time.
Appellant was charged with two counts of concealing minor children from a parent with rights to visitation, and the jury convicted on both counts, leading to this appeal and reversal for lack of concealment evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to prove concealment of a minor child	Fitman argues evidence failed to prove concealment	State contends evidence supports concealment by keeping children from parent	Reversed; no concealment evidence supports conviction

State v. Webb, 440 N.W.2d 426 (Minn. 1989) (requisite sufficiency standard for reviewing evidence on appeal)
State v. Moore, 438 N.W.2d 101 (Minn. 1989) (jury credibility presumption and standard of review)
Bernhardt v. State, 684 N.W.2d 465 (Minn. 2004) (standard for sufficiency of evidence beyond reasonable doubt)
In r e Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (U.S. 1970) (due process standard for proving facts beyond reasonable doubt)
Brua v. Minn. Joint Underwriting Ass’n, 778 N.W.2d 294 (Minn. 2010) (interpretation of statutory language and plain meaning)
Gassler v. State, 787 N.W.2d 575 (Minn. 2010) (usage-based interpretation of statutory terms)
State v. Niska, 514 N.W.2d 260 (Minn. 1994) (concealment cases involve actively hiding the child from a parent)