*1 second apply. not tion does Knaffla because apply not also does
exception post- his offer reason
Azure did not raising the inef- petition for
conviction claims on of trial counsel assistance
fective Accordingly, we hold appeal.
direct its did not abuse court postconviction all of Azure’s finding
discretion trial counsel
ineffective assistance barred. procedurally were
claims
Affirmed. Minnesota, Respondent,
STATE HARTMANN,
Diane Marcella al., Appellants.
et
No. A03-1674. Minnesota.
Supreme Court of 28, 2005.
July *3 Woods, PA,
Gary Advocacy K. Alliance MN, Minneapolis, Appellants. for Hatch, Paul, General, Attorney Mike St. MN, County Junge, Michael K. McLeod Metz, Attorney, Mark Asst. McLeod Coun- Glencoe, MN, Attorney, Respondent. ty OPINION MEYER, Justice. Hart-
Appellants Diane and Michael appeal mann their convictions of failure to sell meat under Minn. obtain license Stat. 28A.04 unauthorized custom-processed meat under 31A.10(4)(2004).1 MinmStat. Before appeals, district court and the court argued conduct was statutorily prosecution and exempt from Article protected by also Section lower the Minnesota Both Constitution. con- that the Hartmanns’ courts concluded statutorily constitu- was neither nor duct af- tionally exempt prosecution. from part part. reverse firm organic a small The Hartmanns own Gibbon, Minnesota, rural where farm in The cows they raise and animals. crops Hart- the farm the hogs raised on by Lafay- custom-processed manns were Lafayette, City Minnesota. ette Meats then meat was returned Hartmanns, directly sold meat who their van at a residence to consumers from 1. Custom animal or ing, eviscerating, owner processing processing the animal or of the meat dressing, is defined as processing "slaughter- * * * an ucts owner of * * [*] * * * (cid:127)’ Minn.stat. custom all animal meat operation or of the meat products are returned subd. * * * products derived Hutchinson, In April appeals The court of affirmed the convic- Minnesota. Hartmann, tions, State v. began investigation the state into the granted re- meat-selling practices (Minn.App.2004), Hartmanns’ after it and we selling information that were view. received
uninspected performed meat. The state I. on their activities and on two
surveillance separate agents Depart- occasions guilty found The Hartmanns were Agriculture purchased ment of without a quantities custom-pro- Hartmanns small license under Minnesota Consolidated wieners, beef, pork chops, ground cessed Law, Licensing Food which states: “No liver, and bacon. December beef On person engage in business of shall *4 Agricul- of Department Minnesota selling, han manufacturing, processing, ture officer Theresa Chirhart compliance dling, storing having or food first without picked up an order of meat Diane the a obtained from commissioner license Hartmann outside van Hutchinson. for doing such business.” Minn.Stat. sale, After issued the Chirhart Diane (2004). 28A.04, § subd. The Hartmanns order following: stop Hartmann the an they li exempt claim that are this the food without a retail food han- sale of censing requirement Minn.Stat. license; stop dler’s order to the sale of 28A.15, (2004), § 1-2 pro subds. meat; copies of the custom-processed pertinent part: vides in subject Minnesota statutes that were the licensing provisions The of sections orders; report. of the and a written apply 28A.01 to 28A.16 shall not to the response, the Hartmanns sent letter re- following: questing interpretation the state’s of a * * * selling Persons the number of state constitutional and statuto- of garden occupied the farm or and ry provisions informing and the state that them, persons cultivated or not to respond, it failed the Hartmanns engaged regularly in the business of agreement would the consider with manufacturing and food and interpretation. state did not prepare only who food on order of and respond to this letter. directly the ultimate con- On March the state filed crimi- sumer, educational, or to charitable or Hartmanns, nal complaints against the religious organizations regularly not charging one count each them with engaged in the business of manufactur- failure to obtain a license violation of ing, processing, or selling food count un- and one educational, established charitable or of custom-processed authorized sale religious institutions. 31A.10(4). in violation of Minn.Stat. The The language the first clause of this complaints were mailed to the Hartmanns nearly exclusion language identical to address, at a street but were returned to Constitution, which pro court district because the Hartmanns “Any peddle vides: person sell or receptacle. had no No mail further at- products garden occupied tempt notify made to was himby and obtaining cultivated against of the complaint them. XIII, license Minn. art. therefor.” Const. was to the district 7. argue ease submitted The Hartmanns that because stipulated facts, statutory nearly
court on and the Hart- exclusion includes manns were convicted on both counts. identical language the Minnesota Con stitution, constitutionally protect farm” are and cultivated can mean they Hartmann, requirement. only vegetables. from licensure fruits and ed The court of appeals N.W.2d of construction principles Several that because meat is “culti- concluded issue. analysis our When guide li- vated” it can never be sold without a examining provisions, we reading cense.2 do not agree with this clear, explicit, unambig “give effect 7. The language article ordinary meaning lan uous provision protection all extends its Connolly, guage.” Rice products; only (Minn.1992) limitation (construing the mean garden occupied farm or must be and culti- betting” to de ing of “on-track words vated seller. This is evidenced telephone wagering tele- termine the conjunctive “occupied use of culti- betting forms of racing were not allowable product vated” —a cannot be both occupied under the Minnesota Constitution because track); cultivated, away garden from the but place take a farm can. Holm, Therefore, ex rel. Minn: State Gardner we conclude that article We will 62 N.W.2d provides people may sell in the con not “substitute words used without a license farm or a' *5 having meaning a well-defined stitution garden farm or long garden so as the a having meaning.” other words different occupied and cultivated the seller. Pett, 429, 432, 253 Minn. 92 State argues The state next that even if “prod- (1958) (holding that the ucts of the farm” not fruit are restricted to a clear and phrase “capital offenses” has vegetable products, “products” and does meaning, is “crimes well-defined processed include because death,” that punishable by interpret and no in its longer raw or natural state. only ing first-degree it to murder mean The a asserts that once raw farm state a de would constitute facto amendment product any way, it longer is altered no Constitution, the and would be qualifies product gar- as a of the farm or court). impermissible an act this When Thus, berries, cream, pigs den. and live meaning of considering ordinary the the farm, preserves, products are of but the provision, we words a constitutional cheese, are butter or and ham not. light “in must construe them the the words, other the the state would substitute social, economic, political and situation of products” or natural the words “raw people adoption, at the time of its as word The offers no au- “products.” state subsequent, changes well as such condi support position, asserting thority to its Rice, (quoting at 247 tions.” 488 N.W.2d only jeop- other that conclusion would Babcock, ex State rel. Chase Minn. public.3 well-being ardize the (1928)). 220 N.W. contends, “product” We consider whether has The state and court held, meaning. well-defined and clear Webster’s appeals that article thing Dictionary “product” defines as “a simply provides people may that sell with “thing products produced by produced out a of the and a license “cultivated labor” peddling appeals that and both and activities 2. The court of also held article agree. only protected protected. are activity Hartmann, peddling. N.W.2d at 694-95. appeals an The state now concedes that this is errone- court of did not rule on provision reading ous issue. process, social, economic, resulting light from as a natu- of the politi- ral, social, cal people or historical one.” situation of the at the time Random provision Unabridged adopted, was we consider Dictionary House Webster’s docu- (2d ed.2001). insight providing ments into “prod- Black’s these factors defines highly persuasive. “Something uct” as: is distributed commercially consumption for use argues the Hartmanns’ (1) tangible personal property, is usu. product butcher, is the animal sent to the (2) the result of fabrication or processing, meat, but that product, the end is a has passed through item that a product of the butcher’s effort and not the chain of commercial distribution before ul- Hartmanns’. The state’s would consumption.” timate use or Black’s Law have some merit the butcher were sell- (8th ed.2004). Dictionary 1245 Neither meat, than returning rather it to product these sources that a suggests Hartmanns, or if the butcher delivered unprocessed things. limited to To the con- quantity Hartmanns a certain trary, recognize both process- definitions processed meat that had the butcher ing as making incidental to the of a all the animals it received from various dictionary uct. These support But, definitions farmers. parties stipulate the- here generally meat, accepted notion that processed butcher the Hart- cheese, are butter individually manns’ animals and kept the farm. finished separate, ensuring that the Hartmanns received their own animals An opinion attorney general Thus, meat. the butcher expressed the view that “meat from performed * * in creating * one step the final animals occupied by raised land Hartmanns, sold but *6 interpreted farmer ‘products would be as accurately cannot said that be the end of the farm within garden’ or the meaning product was the butcher’s. XIII, of Op. Att’y [article section 7].” Gen. (Dec. 1939). The understanding common 7, and dictio- No. 213 In that opinion, nary “product,” definitions of word and attorney general cited a case from the 1939, the attorney general’s opinion from Columbia, District of which stated: lead us to that a product conclude of the practice country, [T]he common of the XIII, 7, farm under may article section be has been to all things consider those a processed item and need not be in its farming or products agricultural prod- “raw or natural” Meat generally state. is ucts which produc- had the situs of their farm; understood to be a of the farm, upon tion and which were therefore, we conclude that meat that has brought into condition the uses of been raised on occupied a farm and culti- society by of engaged the labor those vated the seller and then and agricultural pursuits, as contra-distin- returned to “product” the seller is a guished manufacturing from or other in- may be sold without a license under article dustrial pursuits. XIII, section 7. Id. attorney The general’s opinion, while not binding, persuasive authority believe, however, is for the We do not proposition “products XIII, of the farm” article can reasonably section be meat, was understood to include at a read to grant right time farmers to sell Const, close to the of Minn. adoption products farm, art. of growing or sale XIII, § 7. Since we must use the of ordinary prohibited which is otherwise law. meaning of phrases constitutional words or This provision merely provides prod- * * * from chase stock others. person any farm which of the ucts i.e., license; principle There can no distinction in prod- a sales obtain lawful peddles his own party between who ob- ucts, by farmers without may be sold who stock product, buys and the one his A license to do so. taining a license it, producer, peddles from a governmental from permission “formal recognize cannot such distinc- we some- authority to do constituted other or tion. some business carry as to thing, Webster’s, 1109. Be- supra,
profession.” 91, 100 legislature at N.W. at 645. The Id. to a license of the need obtain ing relieved to the case proposing reacted Jensen to Constitution, farmers sell therefore allows to Minnesota amendment obtaining the without of their farm ucts heartily was ratified the voters is not to That permission. government’s 19065 and now codified XIII, 7, protects Anderson, section say XIII, that article article section William regulation any government from farmers History Minneso A the Constitution (1921). for sale. production ta 157 by a control or direct regulate to To leading pas- up The circumstances to the words, we article In read other rule. XIII, article section make clear sage of XIII, exempt farmers that the voters of Minnesota intended but licensure sell be- relationship the commercial protect of the production substantive by re- tween farmers and their customers products. of their farm sale power license the stricting state’s products directly of farm to the con- history adoption following Const, supported by this This view is sumer. supports Minn. art. in a 1925 case court’s observation reading. In this court decided State 7, gives “recognition article Jensen, Minn. 100 N.W. to the fact that tillers the soil stand Jensen, [ ] convict peddler was in a reference peculiar position along wagon from his melons ed prohib- marketing products, of their having Minneapolis the streets to sell or imposition of a license its the 88-90, peddle. Id. at license obtained Minnesota Wheat peddle same.” ar N.W. 644-45. defendant *7 Marketing Hug- Co-op. Ass’n Growers’ peddler, that he not a but was gued was 420, 162 Minn. N.W. gins, there goods, own and selling farmer his (1925). subject ped be fore he should not 90, Id. at licensing requirement.4
dler’s 7, XIII, section hold that article his This court affirmed 100 N.W. 645. right products farmers the sell grants conviction, stating: garden they are not oth- farm or selling, fact sold from legally prohibited the articles
[T]he erwise products language of the obtaining house to are the a license. The house XIII, no and garden farm or offers article section is broad seller’s own of the farm” placed Defining “products he should not clear. just why reason product for which include farmer’s parties pur- who on the same basis 190,897 in $125, received votes represented 5. The amendment 4. The license cost 34,094 average opposition, annual of a total nearly and out of the farmer's favor 50% Anderson, History: Agri- 284,366 See American income culture, 1900. A Histo- William votes. com/topic/agri- http (1921). answers. ry ://www. the Constitution Minnesota culture. may gives “clear, license issue effect to the substantive related to the explicit, unambiguous ordinary and mean- production or sale of their products. farm language” of the and honors the intent Therefore, XIII, although article section of the Minnesota voters who ratified Minn. exempts a farmer from obtaining a license Const, XIII, Therefore, § art. 7. products to sell the farm, of his or her prosecuted Hartmanns not be for fail- farmer is not free to ignore regulations ure to obtain a license to prod- sell meat imposed production on the those ucts of their farm. Similarly, ucts.7 if sale of a particular product farm prohibited is otherwise II. law, XIII, article section does not insu- The Hartmanns also challenge late farmers from prohibition. their convictions for custom-pro here, Sale of the at issue cus- cessed meat violation of Minn.Stat. meat, tom-processed prohibited is 10(4), stat- § 31A. which part is of the Minnesota 31A.10(4). § ute. Minn.Stat. The statuto- Meat Poultry Inspection and Act.6 The ry regulation of custom-processed meat challenge this conviction on but part a small of a First, larger much grounds. regulato- two they contend that the ry governs structure that statutory production prohibition on sale of custom- sale of food right meat violates Minnesota for to sell protection public’s of the protected health See, XIII, safety. (Li- e.g., Article Section of the Minn.Stat. chs. 28A Second, Handlers); censing Constitution. Food they argue (Food); (Meat 1(1) (2004), Minn.Stat. 31A Poultry subd. Inspection) ex empts prohibition. general, them from the processing governed of meat is by regulations that require licensing and Constitutional Claim inspection facilities; of processing see (2004) Minn.Stat. 28A.04 (licensing), Hartmanns’ (2004) based on article 31.53 (inspection fails right slaughter houses), because the to sell farm prod and Minn.Stat. ucts §§ without a license pro created 31A.03 and 31A.04 (inspection of vision is not as broad as contend. animals both As before and processing). after supra, protection noted provided by Custom-processed meat subject to less article against licensing rigorous regulation, in that it exempted requirements does not exempt farmers from the requirements inspection 31A.10(4) provides: Section person “No well-being people of this state and animal, may, carcass, respect with to an part production, that its processing, packaging, * * * *8 carcass, meat, of a product: or meat food labeling, handling, distribution and sale * * sell, (4) sale, * possess offer for or hazards, may create health misinform con- with intent to self meat derived from custom sumers, perpetuate frauds or otherwise processing.” jeopardize public health and welfare * * * * * * require to producers, that all pure The distinction licensing between re- labelers, handlers, processors, packagers, quirements regulation and substantive is also food, distributors and vendors of whether or reflected, example, legislature’s in the subject licensing, not required shall be Policy Declaration of in the Minnesota Con- comply applicable adopted with all mies Licensing solidated Food Law: the commissioner. hereby It is declared to be policy of added). § Minn.Stat. (emphasis 28A.02 legislature, recognizing that food in its various forms is essential to the health and
457 regarding process due the Hartmanns’ pre- post-slaughtering. animals 1(2). brief; 31A.15, But the principal subd. there is no discussion in Minn.Stat. exemption from these legal trade off for of either their briefs standards safety that cus- inspections is process health and a due claim no applicable to meat not be sold. See tom-processed authority citation to with reference to due 31A.10(4). MinmStat. references to the state’s process. Vague power enough not an police are invoke XIII, 7, exempt section does not Article unarticulated and unidentified constitution- safety from this health and the Hartmanns protection. repeatedly We have held al of prohibits sale unin- argue an issue in a party’s that failure words, In other custom- spected meat. See, waiver brief constitutes issue. law- is not a processed meat Olson, e.g., Application re 648 sold, the fact that fully may be 226, (Minn.2002); Koppinger N.W.2d 228 constitutionally protected Hartmanns are Fairmont, City v. 311 Minn. 189 n. needing a license to sell lawful 711 n. Al- legalize farm does not ucts custom-processed though meat. Accord- we have not defined detail what sale issue, ille- ingly, the Hartmanns’ convictions for failure to it argue constitutes not did gal custom-processed only sale of meat that making cryp- should be clear one XIII, sec- rights violate their under article provision tic reference to tion 7. brief, reply any express in a other explanation, argument, or citation rele- .to do make The Hartmanns not authority, vant is not sufficient. Accord- claims any other coherent constitutional we that constitutional ingly, must conclude custom-pro respect with to the sale claims than based on article other those They cessed make a terse reference meat. have section been waived brief, in their process reply to a due claim Hartmanns.8 addressing in the their convictions license, at for sale without where Statutory Exemption Claim respondent’s argument that tempt to rebut The Hartmanns also contend produce is not fundamental 31A.15, 1(1), exempts subd. However, right. neither the Hartmanns’ prohibition from the on sale them petition for review to this court nor custom-processed meat. Section principal of issues in their brief statement 1, provides: subd. Clause, mentions the Due Process or provisions of 31A.01 to arti sections provision other constitutional besides 7; inspection of requiring cle there is no 31A.16 process challenge. equal protection 8. The that the state failed due dissent concludes Further, opinion required showing pro although express we no make a that the statute properly raised hibiting custom-processed is ra the issue because was Hartmanns, response legitimate we note in tionally related to achievement of a citing suggestion public governmental purpose, dissent's that there is no Co., treating safety the sale Creamery health rationale for Clover U.S. Leaf (1981), differently custom-processed than the L.Ed.2d Contos S.Ct. household, Herbst, (Minn. 1979). use of such meat the owner's N.W.2d 732 *9 showing governmental required it is for make such a not uncommon is federal, state, level, every challenged and when is as a a statute violation local, activity differently Creamery, equal protection, to treat commercial as Clover in Leaf activity engaged per a the in on process, or due as in But than same substantive Contos. sonal, cognizable basis. the Hartmanns have made no noncommercial slaughter of preparation “slaughtering, process animals and the an animal or [etc.] * * * carcasses, parts carcasses, of the products meat for the owner of * * * * * * meat, products and meat food or the animal of the meat * * * conducting slaughter establishments and all meat derived from the preparation apply: do not operation custom are returned to the own * * (1) processing by person to the a 31A.02, er Minn.Stat. subd. person’s the the own animals and own- Plainly, processing pro custom involves preparation transportation er’s and in cessing by of the meat other than someone * * * intrastate commerce of meat the. owner, with the all of the returned * * * exclusively of those animals for pro Just plainly, owner. custom by use the owner and members of the riot cessing processing does include of the household, nonpaying guests, owner’s by exemp the owner himself. The employees; or and (1) provided tion in clause of section (2) to processing by per- the custom 31A.15, 1, applies pro subdivision to owner cattle, swine, sheep, poultry son cessing, exemption whereas in the clause goats by for pro- delivered the owner (2) applies custom processing. Because cessing, the preparation and trans- the custom-pro Hartmanns’ meat was in portation commerce of intrastate the cessed, they (2) * * * * * * must look to clause for exclusively for in use exemption. by the household the owner owner household, of the members owner’s However, one of the conditions of the nonpaying guests, employees. (2) exemption clause is meat must be argue The Hartmanns term “use” “exclusively for use in the household phrase “exclusively by for use by owner the owner and of the members (1) owner” clause is not defined and household, nonpaying guests, owner’s can therefore include the owner’s sale of 31A.15, employees.” Minn.Stat. subd. meat. 1(2) added). (emphasis The precise lan- The Hartmanns’ reliance on the statuto- guage exemption of this “for use ry exemption fails several reasons. household the owner” belies Hart- (1) First, clause of subdivision does not manns’ the “use” allowed apply to the Hartmanns’ circumstances be- includes sale of the tomeat others.9 (1) by applies cause clause its only terms by to “the processing person of the An statutory additional reason that the person’s own animals.” Id. The Hart- exemption does not render the Hartmanns’ process animals; manns did not their own conviction unlawful sales is that invalid Lafayette City them sent Meats exemption only inspection for processing. provisions designated statutes. There all in exemp- is no reference at contrast, (2) clause its terms tion language prohibition against applies processing person “custom meat, custom-processed sale of and there- [animals] delivered the owner for fore no processing.” exemption reason to conclude the subd. 1(2). Custom processing activity. is defined as covers that . By noting phrase 9 meaning the “in household” attributed to it the Hartmanns. (2) present in clause inapplicable clause Because clause to the facts (1), case, suggest we do not mean to express opinion that "use” in we no on the (1) may scope exemption. clause therefore the broad have of that
459 to It reasons, applied con- the Hartmanns. be the Hartmanns’ For these conclusion, statutory challenges but, to possible to that to stitutional reach selling custom-pro- here, their convictions it necessary go reach it to outside in violation of Minn.Stat. cessed meat parameters arguments made the 31A.10(4)fail, by the Hartmanns —a concern has majority. the been articulated There- III. fore, I majority exercising believe the brief, argued the Hartmanns judicial proper degree restraint to prosecute them that the state’s decision when it declines the dissent’s invitation to to them with ad- failing provide after expand the reach of this case sua “objective evidence hearing ministrative 31A.10(4) sponte declaring Minn.Stat. The also Hartmanns vindictiveness.” unconstitutional. prosecutorial further cited as evidence question The of whether a statute is failure resend vindictiveness the state’s to delicacy, is one of “much unconstitutional against the Hartmanns when complaint seldom, ever, if ought which to be decided undeliverable, despite hav- returned was in in a the affirmative doubtful case.” obtained notice Hartmanns (6 Peck, Cranch) 87, 10 U.S. Fletcher by general delivery from the their mail (1810).1 always L.Ed. 162 must 3 We But, post office. Glencoe assumption a proceed on statute is explicitly prosecutorial abandoned their required constitutional and “we are to claim, argument. vindictiveness oral a construction on the statute that place Therefore, reach the merits of we do not possible.” will find it so if at all Kline v. this issue. Inc., Berg Drywall, 685 N.W.2d part. in part and reversed Affirmed (Minn.2004). power exercise our to declare a statute unconstitutional “with ex (con- ANDERSON, H„ PAUL Justice Harris, treme caution.” State v. curring). (Minn.2003) (quoting N.W.2d I concur the result reached Larsen, 650 State v. majority and the reasons stated (Minn.2002)). respect “Due 'for co Nevertheless, separately I write to result. requires equal government” branches of us acknowledge first the attraction certain McCoy, to exercise restraint. State position and sec- aspects of dissent’s (Minn.2004) (quoting 682 N.W.2d ond, I explain why inappro- believe it is Willis, State v. 332 N.W.2d priate to reach the dissent’s conclusion (Minn.1983)). given record in this case. declaring a statute When the basis dissent have us hold that would 31A.10(4) argued by the par- is unconstitutional unconstitutional is not imposes. gations station But it 1. See the comments of Chief Justice John which that Peck, vague implication slight in Fletcher v. where Chief Jus- con- Marshall is not legislature jecture pro- tice said: is to be Marshall that the powers, its nounced have transcended question, whether law be void for its constitution, is, and its acts to be considered as void. The repugnancy at all times, opposition between the constitution and delicacy, question of much ever, seldom, judge should be such feels law ought decided affirmative, court, strong conviction of incom- clear a doubtful case. The compelled duty patibility with each other. render such a when (6 Cranch) station, 10 U.S. 3 L.Ed. judgment, unworthy of its would be it be of the solemn obli- could unmindful *11 460 in argu protections granted
ties
either their briefs or
oral
to sell
farmers
ment,
be a
rare
I
very
products,
it should
occasion own
respectfully dissent.
proceed
where we
to consider the constitu
declare,
today
We
that it is “clear that
tionality
unargued
of the statute on
the voters of Minnesota
to pro-
intended
grounds.
Maytag
unarticulated
See
Co. v.
relationship
tect the commercial
between
Taxation,
Comm’r
Minn.
218
farmers
restricting
customers
37,
(1944) (declining
17
39
N.W.2d
con
power
the state’s
license
sale of
constitutionality
sider the
a tax
statute
products directly
consumer.”
argue
plaintiff
when the
did not
the issue This much the majority grants. The lan-
argument).
its brief
at oral
XIII,
7,
guage
majori-
of article
section
“anticipate
should not
of consti
question
ty
then,
says,
is “broad and
But
clear.”
necessity
tutional
advance of
law
adopting
“pure
a distinction
li-
between
deciding it.”
Ashwander
Tennessee
censing requirements and
reg-
substantive
288, 346-48,
Valley Authority, 297 U.S.
56
“[ajrticle
ulation,”
majority
states that
466,
(quoting
S.Ct.
Marketing Huggins, Assn. v. 162 Minn. (1925).3 420, 424 ACTION AGAINST Richard Edward 203 N.W. Be- EDINGER, Attorney, I prohibition cause conclude Registration sale of custom No. 263965. found 31A.10(4) as ap- unconstitutional No. A04-1276. Hartmanns, I plied respectfully dis- *13 sent. Supreme Court of Minnesota. July 2005.
BLATZ, Chief (dissenting). Justice join I in the Barry dissent bf Justice G.
Anderson.
PAGE, (dissenting). Justicé join
I in the Barry dissent of Justice G.
Anderson.
Constitution,
tion,
perhaps
surprising
reject
argument
sota
it is
I
made
the ma-
it
applies
is unclear what standard
jority
concurring opinion
and the
analysis
provision
constitutional
of this
Hartmanns somehow
to make
failed
the re-
party
proof
bears
burden of
quired
challenge
custom
challenge.
connection with a constitutional
slaughtering provision.
greater clarity
While
Usually, a statute is
valid and the
presumed
helpful,
in the
would have been
duty
challenging' party
prove
Hartmanns have
claimed from the start
Markman,
invalidity. Essling v.
335 N.W.2d
proceedings
these
are constitutional-
(Minn.1983).
But the burden
farm,
ly permitted
to sell the
of their
impinges
shift to
when a law
on a
e.g.,
slaughtered
custom
meat.
I believe the
right recognized implicitly
explicitly
in the
adequately preserved
issue is
for consider-
See,
State,
e.g.,
constitution.
Skeen
prosecu-
ation
this court in this criminal
(Minn.1993). Similarly,
N.W.2d
tion.
arguable
higher
while
is at least
that a
level
scrutiny applies
challenged
statute
when
undisputed
It is
that Minnesota is far more
directly impinges
right guaranteed by
aon
urban
character than
when Minneso
Constitution,
312-13,
Minnesota
see id. at
tans
the state
amended
constitution. Yet it is
here,
least,
very
at the
the state
show
must
noting
according
worth
to the Minnesota
rationally
that the statute
’must
related to
Department
Agriculture,
Minnesota cur
legitimate governmental
achievement of a
rently
agricultural
produc
ranks 7th
total
See,
purpose.
e.g.,
Minnesota
Clover Leaf
states,
among
tion
home to some
Co.,
Creamery
449 U.S.
101 S.Ct.
80,900 farms, comprising
of our state's
55%
(1981);
Herbst,
meat is Constitu-