*1 appeals’ The court verse the court of conclusion that a fact as to each element. material genuine of material fact found that Rouse had shown issue exists on this appeals ele- of material fact on each element of the defamation action.8 genuine issue defamation claim and reversed ment of the genuine Because there was no issue of the defen- summary judgment in favor of material fact on an element of the defamation lawyers. Because we find that Rouse dant Rouse, non-moving par- action for which produced sufficient evidence to cre- has not ty, production, had the burden of Rouse publication fact issue as to the element ate a summary judgment not could have survived a defamation, we reverse.7 underlying motion in the defamation action. defamatory, employer must would been entitled to To be a statement The have judgment foregone on communicated to someone other than the as matter of law the be affirm plaintiff. Equitable Lewis v. Assurance defamation claim. We therefore sum- Life mary judgment lawyers defendant Soc’y, 389 N.W.2d The plaintiffs traditional rule was that could not this case on the issue of causation. they if recover for defamation themselves Reversed, judgment in favor of defen- per a third communicated the statement dants reinstated. Lewis, exception Id. we created an son. publication to that rule and held that ANDERSON, J., part no took requirement be satisfied where the consideration or decision of this case. compelled publish a defama plaintiff was person if it tory statement to a third was plaintiff
foreseeable to the defendant that the compelled.
would be so Id. at 888. The
employees in Lewis had no reasonable means avoiding defamatory publication they by prospec
statement when were asked employers identify the reasons
tive discharged. Id.
were argues put that he has forward
Rouse dispute sufficient evidence to create a fact compelled publish to whether he was Iver- DENDY, Appellant. subsequent son’s statement interviews employment. evidence Rouse has testimony, provided deposition is his own during he submitted a list of thirteen Appeals of Minnesota. Court companies he interviewed. Rouse re where interviews,
membered some details about the companies’ roughly such as offices where and, cases, located in a few whether he How
interviewed with a man or a woman.
ever, provide names of inter he could any documentary evi provide
viewers nor having applications, sent
dence of filled out rejections. hold
resumes or received has not met his burden on the
that Rouse publication and we therefore re-
element of
Having
did not show a
agree
appeals
concluded that Rouse
with the court of
7. While
regarding
genuine
on the issue of
genuine
issue of material fact
of material fact exists
issue
statements,
publication,
to reach the defense
allegedly defamatory
we do not need
the truth of the
lawyers
protected the
defamatory
privilege
assert
it is
an untrue statement is not
unless
employer’s
published. Stuempges,
former
statements.
damages apartment to his door caused police executing a warrant. when search reverse.
FACTS search war- Police obtained “no-knock” premises appellant leased to rant for warrant, Dendy. executing forcibly Dendy’s apartment, police entered Dendy subsequently damaging the door. pleaded guilty degree a fifth controlled possession for of cocaine. substance offense Cederberg sought Landlord Allan then resti- Dendy police damage tution from for granted district court land- request part, ordering Dendy pay damaged appeal This for the door. $830 followed.
ISSUE by ordering ap- the district court err Did pellant pay restitution to his landlord for caused, him, property damage but police as a “no-knock” search conducted appellant’s apartment?
ANALYSIS “A trial court has wide discretion order Muller, reasonable restitution.” State (Minn.App.1984). 358 N.W.2d statutory question construction is a of law fully Hibbing and thus reviewable. Educ. Bd., Emp. Ass’n v. Rel. Public 369 N.W.2d 527, 529 “The fundamental aim appellate construing of an III, statute Gen., Humphrey, Atty. H. Hubert give legislative ascertain and effect Foley, Ramsey County Atty., Tom Steven C. Copeland, intent.” In re DeCoster, Ramsey County Atty., Asst. St. (Minn.App.1990), pet. rev. denied Paul, respondent. for for (Minn. 1990). 13 and Stuart, Defender, M. Public John State “[Ojnly the victim is entitled to receive Winking, Charlann E. Asst. State Public De- Harwell, fender, Minnesota, restitution.” State v. University of Minne- 105, 110 (Minn.App.1994),pet. rev. denied apolis, appellant. (Minn. 15, 1994).' The June restitution stat FORSBERG, Considered and decided ute defines ‘Victim” as a “natural LANSING, DAVIES, P.J., JJ. harm incurs loss or as a result of crime.” 611A.01(b) (1992) (emphasis added). Thus, the issue is whether the land OPINION (which lord’s indirect stem not so DAVIES, Judge. Dendy’s much from law) are, Appellant challenges efforts to enforce the under the restitution order re- statute, Dendy’s quiring possession him to his landlord for “a result of’ reimburse plies to crime victim cocaine. The 611A.51-.67). expressly address whether This does not suggests legislature intentionally damages are “a result of a crime.” ex- cluded the definition of “victim” include, but is not limited Restitution *3 611A.01(b) (for restitution) purposes of from to, the broad definition it used section resulting from the any out-of-pocket losses (for Thus, purposes reparations). of 611A.52 costs, crime, including therapy and medical relationship we must examine the between services, wages of and replacement “reparations” policy “restitution” and the expenses. funeral behind each. 1(a) 611A.04, (1992); § subd. ac- Minn.Stat. (1992) 611A.045, § subd. cord Minn.Stat. comparative analysis A of these two (in determining propriety and amount of res- portions chapter 611A us to of leads conclude * * * titution, “shall consider the repara that the definitions differ because loss sustained the amount of economic pro tions and restitution were intended to offense”). Thus, a the victim as result quite responses vide different to the losses presumably door would fit reparations suffered crime victims. The compensable “loss- this definition of within portion chapter provides compensa of 611A es.” revenues; public to victims from tion crime therefore, public pre limited the funds are is
But it is not clear that the landlord suffering easily those the most served for the class of victims whose within losses, tragic most that is demonstrated and crime.” If the damage [the] “result[ed] Id., injury “personal or death.” 10.2 subd. of legislature intended the same definition apply through chapter all of “victim” to contrast, public because resources are 611A,1 look to the “Crime Victims we could involved, restitution can be made avail- Reparations” portion chapter of losses, including of able for a broader set 611A.51-.67), “victim,” defines economic, property-damage purely losses. quite relevantly, as a broader while restitution covers injury personal suffers or a range damages, a it is limited to narrower a result of: death as direct range of crime victims. Section 611A.52 de- (1) crime; a expansively than does fines “victim” more (2) any person good faith effort of to 611A.01(b). legislature extended crime; prevent a or availability personal (3) any person to good faith effort of injuries peripherally that are related person suspected engaging apprehend -including damages incurred itself— in a crime. limit- a result of enforcement efforts —but (1992). 611A.52, § subd. 10 directly by restitution to ed breaking actions in down the officer’s conduct.3 This is a reasonable the unlawful good fall “the faith effort door would within distinction, program is a de- suspect.' any person apprehend” a bring together signed to offender and victim purposes given for rehabilitative But —if the statute is a literal read- —rehabilitative ap- both victim and offender. expansive definition of “victim” —this materia, is, adopted provisions the restitution pari that statutes on the 3.The act that 1. Statutes in subject, reparations provi- existing should be with reference same construed renumbered the also 299B, to each other. chapter congregating thus all sions from single rights” legislation into a the “victims’ injury" losses "Personal would not include the 2. 1, Minn.Laws ch. Art. —611A. "injury" defined as "ac- claimed here because Thus, legisla- presume § 6. cannot 611A.052, bodily tual harm.” Minn.Stat. of the definition of "victim" ture was unaware (1992). although of the stat- And this defi- when it enacted a narrower section 611A.52 losses, "eco- economic it defines ute refers to section 611A.01. of “victim” in nition narrowly detriment loss" as "economic nomic injury or death.” incurred as a direct result of subd. 8 the definition We conclude contrast in section
“victim” —in in section 611A.52— broader definition dam for indirect does not allow restitution (NMN) MAIDI, Appellant. Abdelhamid at ages, as those caused no-knock search warrant
tempt to execute suspects. apprehend and similar efforts Appeals of Court of Minnesota. is not inconsistent This conclusion with Aug. concerning restitution. existing case law Review Granted proper “where the victim’s Restitution is *4 by appellant’s con- directly caused losses are Olson, 899, v.
duct.” State Hanson,
(Minn.App.1986); accord State (af- (Minn.App.1987) expenses
firming restitution where crime).
a “direct result” Bendy’s we cannot conclude opposed to the offi-
possession of cocaine—as entry directly caused the land- cers’ forced — Accordingly, hold that damages. not authorize restitu- does police in
tion for
executing a no-knock search warrant.
DECISION implicit
The trial court exceeded the terms granting
of the statute landlord incurred when search warrant of defen-
executed a no-knoek
dant’s
Reversed.
FORSBERG, Judge (dissenting): respectfully
I dissent. Minn.Stat.
§ 611A.04 allows restitution for a victim of a clearly means that such dam-
crime which
ages occurred as a result of a crime. The damages due to the crime
landlord suffered trial its
and therefore the court did abuse
discretion.