STATE оf Minnesota, Respondent, v. Jane Douglass HOYT, Appellant.
No. 50889.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
April 24, 1981.
Whoever does any of the following commits an assault * * *
(1) Does an act with intent to cause fear in another of immediate bodily harm or death; or
(2) Intentionally inflicts or attempts to inflict bodily harm upon another.
Conviction under either
Accordingly we vacate the lesser of the two convictions. In so doing, we rely on the Blockburger test, see Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 97 S.Ct. 2221, 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977), and
Three convictions affirmed; assault conviction is vacated.
Robert Alfton, City Atty., Edward A. Backstrom, III, Asst. City Atty., Minneapolis, for respondent.
K. Craig Wildfang, Minneapolis, for Minn. Ass‘n of Health Care Facilities.
Briggs & Morgan, Leonard J. Keyes and John R. Kenefick, St. Paul, for St. Mary‘s Rehabilitation Center, amicus curiae.
Toby S. Edelman, National Senior Citizens Center, Washington, D.C., amicus curiae.
Linda M. Ojala, Minneapolis, for Minnesota Civil Liberties Union, amicus curiae.
AMDAHL, Justice.
Defendant appeals from an order of a Hennepin County District Court appellate panel affirming her conviction of trespass upon the premises of St. Mary‘s Rehabilitation Center.1
Prior to trial an evidentiary hearing was held to determine the admissibility of defendant‘s proffered testimony as to her defense of claim of right. Defendant made an offer of proof and the trial court ruled the testimony of 21 witnesses inadmissible in total; the testimony of 3 witnesses, including defendant, partially inadmissible; and the testimony of one witness admissible. Following the trial court‘s ruling on the еvidentiary issues, defendant waived trial by jury specifically reserving, through stipulation with the prosecution, all issues for appeal.2
On July 3, 1979, the prosecution case was submitted to the court on stipulated facts and the limited testimony in defendant‘s offer of proof which the court held admissible. Based on the stipulation and such testimony, the trial court found defendant guilty and sentenced her to 30 days in the Hennepin County Adult Corrections Facility. The court stayed the sentence for 1 year on condition that defendant not re-enter St. Mary‘s Rehabilitation Center. An appeal was taken to the district court wherе the conviction was affirmed.
Sharon Siebert is a brain-damaged resident of St. Mary‘s Skilled Nursing Home. In April 1977, when defendant, who is not related to Ms. Siebert, first began visiting her, the latter was in a vegetative or semi-vegetative state, unable to speak, to take food orally, or to respond to stimuli to any significant sense. For approximately 22 months, commencing on April 3, 1977 and continuing until her arrest for trespass, defendant visited Ms. Siebert almost daily and worked with her to improve — at least in defendant‘s mind — Ms. Siebert‘s care and condition. During that time defendant made many complaints to many persons in and out of the faсility and to agencies overseeing skilled nursing facilities concerning the care provided to Ms. Siebert. In October 1977, defendant petitioned to be appointed guardian of the person of Ms. Siebert. About the same time, Siebert‘s parents, Earl and Julie Bigalke, petitioned for the appointment of themselves as co-guardians of the person and estate of Sharon. By order dated November 8, 1977, the probate court granted the petition of the Bigalkes. An appeal of the probate court
St. Mary‘s Skilled Nursing Home is licensed by the state as a skilled nursing facility which is defined by the state as one providing care ordered by physicians and delivered by licensed nursing personnel 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Most of the residents of the skilled nursing home are essentially restricted to the facility due to physical and mental infirmities. The facility provides basically all of the residents’ needs including meals, linen, personal care items, recreation, educational programs, religious facilities and all medical services. A substantial number of the residents are bedridden and few leave the facility for social or other purposes.
The stipulated facts presented to the trial court are substantially these:
On February 1, 1979, defendant received a letter from Terrence J. Brenny, administrator of St. Mary‘s Rehabilitation Cеnter. The letter stated:
In view of the Center‘s obligation to preserve a tranquil atmosphere for patient care and employee morale, you are advised that your privilege to enter the premises of St. Mary‘s Rehabilitation Center has been revoked. Any future entry for any purpose will be considered a trespass and will be dealt with accordingly.
On February 27, 1979, defendant entered the premises of St. Mary‘s Rehabilitation Center, refused to leave voluntarily although requested to do so by several persons including a police officer, and was arrested for criminal trespass tо property pursuant to
Whoever intentionally does any of the following is guilty of a misdemeanor:
* * * * * *
(5) Trespasses upon the premises of another and, without claim of right, refuses to depart therefrom on demand of the lawful possessor thereof * * *
(Emphasis added.)
Defendant also concedes that she was not at the time of her arrest acting as a representative of any group or organization and that she was on the premises for the sole purpose of visiting Sharon Siebert, a resident of the Skilled Nursing Home.
Before Mr. Brenny sent his letter barring defendant from the premises of St. Mary‘s Rehabilitation Center, he discussed the matter with Dr. Salchert, the medical director of the Skilled Nursing Home, Dr. Hedrick, Sharon‘s attending physician, and with the parent-guardians, Mr. and Mrs. Bigalke, all of whom, at the least, acquiesced in the proposed action.3 There is nothing in the record to indicate that defendant was informed that Dr. Salchert, Dr. Hedrick or the parent-guardians had any part in Mr. Brenny‘s action.
Defendant asserts that she had a claim of right as contained in the trespass statute to enter St. Mary‘s Rehabilitation Center. Her assertion is based on three grounds:
(1) The first and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution;
(2) Standard: Patients’ Rights,
(3) A bona fide claim of right in that she believed she had a right to enter St. Mary‘s and that she had reasonable grounds for such belief.
The state concedes that if defendant had either a constitutional or statutory right to be on the premises, the trespass statute is inapplicable.
Although St. Mary‘s Rehabilitation Center is privately owned, it is defendant‘s position that her first amendment rights of speech and association cannot be abridged by the facility because it is the functional equivalent of an ordinary town under Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 66 S.Ct. 276, 90 L.Ed. 265 (1946). In Marsh, a Jehovah‘s Witness was arrested and convictеd under a state trespass statute while distributing religious literature on the streets of a business district located in a company owned town. The town and business district were open and freely accessible to the public in general. The Court noted that although privately owned, the town had the earmarks of an ordinary municipality and functioned no differently than any other town. In reversing the trespass conviction, the Supreme Court held that the company could not curtail the exercise of first amendment rights on its property just as it would be improper for a municipality to do so.
We are aware thаt one court to date has held that a privately-owned nursing home is the “functional equivalent” of a town and therefore subject to first amendment proscriptions. Teitelbaum v. Sorenson, Civ. No. 79-199 PHX WEC (D.Ariz. July 3, 1979) (order denying motion to dismiss and granting preliminary injunction), judgment entered, (D.Ariz. August 6, 1979) (granting permanent injunction), appeal docketed, No. 793530 (9th Cir. August 30, 1979). We do not decide constitutional questions except when necessary to do so in order to dispose of the case at bar. State v. North Star Research & Development Institute, 294 Minn. 56, 81, 200 N.W.2d 410, 425 (1972); Minnesota Baptist Convention v. Pillsbury Academy, 246 Minn. 46, 62, 74 N.W.2d 286, 296 (1955). Because we reverse the conviction on other grounds, we deem it unnecessary to reach the constitutional claim herein presented.4
(II) The Federal Regulations and the Minnesota Statute
Defendant asks us tо hold that she had the authority to enforce the rights granted to Ms. Siebert by Standard: Patients’ Rights,
The statute accords certain rights to patients and residents of nursing facilities including facilities such аs St. Mary‘s Skilled Nursing Home, and further provides that the facility may not require a waiver of the rights as a condition of admission to the facility. The express intent of the statute is to “promote the interests and well being of the patients and residents of health care facilities.”
Among the rights enunciated by the statute is:
(17) Every resident may associate and communicate privately with persons of his choice * * * unless medically contraindicated and documented by his physician in the medical record. * * *
The state is correct in its argument that neither
(3) The Bona Fide Claim of Right
The state cites Carpenter v. Coles, 75 Minn. 9, 77 N.W. 424 (1898) for the proposition that the phrase “claim of right” in
“claim of right,” “claim of title,” and “claim of ownership” * * * mean nothing more than the intention of the disseisor to appropriate and use the land as his own to the exclusion of all others * * * [and that] the presence or absence of good faith of the [adverse] possessor, or whether the possession originated in a naked trespass, or was taken under color or claim of title, is wholly immaterial.
75 Minn. at 11, 77 N.W. at 424. The state recognizes that an adverse possessor need not act in good faith but argues that the quoted language makes clear that a claim of right, whether or not it is held in good faith, means a claim of ownership and that since defendant did not assert a claim of ownership or title to St. Mary‘s, her claim of right that she was acting in good faith is meaningless and no defense to the trespass charge.
A claim of right under
In the instant case the defendants were lawfully in the vestibule, where the means for communicating with the respective tenants had been installed that the tenants might at will release to lock and give access to those seeking to see them. Of course, they could decline to do so if they saw fit. The releasing of the lock, we think, must be held to have at least conferred upon the defendants a license or permission to enter the inner halls, to approach the apartments in question, and, if permitted by the tenant, to state the object of their call. This was a license for the tenants to grant or withhold, one embraced within the easement conferred upon them by the letting, one which subsisted until revoked by the tenants, and one which the tenants could exercise notwithstanding objections of the landlord, who could not revoke the license any more than he could an invitatiоn extended by the tenant to one calling upon any legitimate business.
Id.
This court considered the defense of license to be upon premises and the principle of Richardson, in distinguishing the facts giving rise to the license in Richardson from the facts precluding a finding of implied consent and a license in the case before it, State v. Quinnell, 277 Minn. 63, 151 N.W.2d 598 (1967), a criminal trespass action also brought under
Defendant seems also to argue that, because a large part of the stockyards were leased to independent commission firms, the demonstrators were implied licensees of those commission firms, and Stockyards was therefore without power to revoke the license, citing Commonwealth v. Richardson, 313 Mass. 632, 48 N.E.(2d) 678, 146 A.L.R. 648, in support of
their (sic) contention. To state thе facts, however, is to distinguish the cases at once. The Richardson trespass complaints arose out of the demand of an apartment-building landlord that Jehovah‘s Witnesses refrain from entering upon the premises for the purpose of making peaceful communication with his apartment tenants. It is undisputed, in contrast, that neither the hog chutes nor the East Chute Road giving access thereto was owned or possessed by the commission firms but by Stockyards only, so that no rights of tenants were here involved. Even were this not so, the physical obstructing of the stockyards, for the apparent purpose of сompelling a change in its marketing methods, would seem to be equally hostile to the commission firms and would equally negative any notion of implied consent. * * *
277 Minn. at 69-70, 151 N.W.2d at 603 (emphasis added).
One in possession of premises by permission of a tenant who is entitled to possession is not a trespasser but a licensee. Keithley v. Hettinger, 133 Minn. 36, 157 N.W. 897 (1916).
A license is a mere power, authority, or personal privilege. It does not create an estate or interest in land, and it may be created by parol. A licensee is one who has mere permission to use land, dominion over it remaining in the owner, and no interest in or exclusive possession of it is given to the occupant. 11A M. Dunnell, Dunnell Minnesota Digest 2d Licenses in Real Property § 1.00 (3d ed. 1978) (footnotes omitted).
In Chicago and North Western Transportation Co. v. City of Winthrop, 257 N.W.2d 302, 304 (Minn. 1977), this court succinctly stated:
Because a license is generally revocable, it is not an encumbrance upon land. It is actually a justification for acts done under the license, a sort of immunity from trespass.
(Emphasis added).
A person visiting a nursing home resident with express or implied consent of the resident or of the guardian of the resident is no less a licensee entitled to use the means of ingress and egress to make such visitation possible than is a person visiting an apartment building tenant.
If the guardians had never given express consent or had withdrawn express consent, or if they had acted in such manner as to give rise to implied consent which had been withdrawn, defendant would have no license to enter St. Mary‘s to visit Ms. Siebert and would have no claim of right defense. If express or implied consent of the guardians existed on the date of the alleged trespass, or if defendant had not been informed of the withdrawal of previously existing express or implied consent, she had a claim of right defense to the trespass charge.
Quinnell referred to a claim or right in this manner:
The Advisory Committee Comment on the new Criminal Code, 40 M.S.A. p. 570, commenting on the statutory reference to trespass “without claim of right,” observes that those words simply cover bona fide claims of right and that “[a] false claim would not be a claim at all,” language obviously relating to protection of an innocent trespasser from criminal prosecution.
277 Minn. at 70-71, 151 N.W.2d at 604.
The claim of right is a defense only if it is bona fide. The reason for allowing a defendant in a criminal trespass case the defense of a bona fide belief of claim of right is that the law generally does not punish persons who commit an offense without criminal intent. A bona fide belief, i. e., a gоod faith claim of right, negatives the criminal intent required by
Criminal intent is an essential element of the statutory offense of trespass, even though the statute is silent as to intent, and if the act prohibited is committed in good faith under claim of right or color of title, although the accused is mistaken as to his right, unless it is committed with
force or violence of a breach of the peace, no conviction will lie, since it will not be presumed that the legislature intended to punish criminal acts committed in ignorance, by accident or under claim of right, and in the bona fide belief that the land is the property of the trespasser, unless the terms of the statute forbid any other construction.
Id. (footnote omitted).
In Hayes v. State, 13 Ga.App. 647, 79 S.E. 761 (1913) cited, and quoted from, by the state, a criminal trespass action for title to property was in dispute. The court discussed the trespass statute and quoted from a prior case which held that criminal trespass “was not designed to try disputed land titles, but to punish those who wilfully, and without claim of right, commit acts of trespass on the lands of others.” 13 Ga.App. at 649, 79 S.E. at 762. The court then continued to discuss trespass and the defense of good faith in this language:
An act which, as related to the true owner of land, might appear to be trespass is not in fact a trespass, if the act is committed in good faith by one who actually and sincerely believes that he is authorized (either because authorized by the true owner, or because he believes himself to be the true owner) to do the act in question. In fact the burden rests upon the state of proving the absence of good faith on the part of one accused of trespass, because the act must generally be shown to be willfully done, and, under the particular paragraph upon which the charge against the defendant in the present case was based, it was essential for the state to show that the presence of the accused upon the premises in question was “with no bona fide claim or color of title, and without the consent of the owner.” If, therefore, the defendant had any evidence which tended to show that he did have a bona fide claim dependent upon the consent of one who bona fide claimed to be the owner, it would be error to withhold such evidence from the jury, and thus deprive them of giving to the claim of the defendant equal consideration with that accorded to the claim of the proseсutor. In trespass it is altogether a question of bona fides, and not a question of real title.
Id. at 649-650, 79 S.E. at 762 (emphasis added).
The issue before the court is whether defendant, in her offer of proof, presented a sufficient prima facie case of claim of right to create a fact issue; that is, she believed she had a license to enter St. Mary‘s and there were reasonable grounds for her belief.5
Defendant testified at the hearing that: she had visited Sharon Siebert almost daily for some 22 months; the guardians were aware of her visits and her actions with Ms. Siebert; the guardians had never told her not to visit; and the guardians and their minister encouraged defendant‘s involvement and advocacy on behalf of Ms. Siebert.
Moreover, there was no showing that defendant was at any time informed, until subsequent to her arrest, that the guardians had consented to, or acquiesced in, the decision of Mr. Brenny to bar her from the facility.
Excerpts of the testimony by guardian Earl Bigalke offered as a part of the defendant‘s offer of proof are material here:
Q But it was his idea that she be barred, was it not?
A I don‘t know.
Q Was it your idea, sir?
A No.
Q I am sorry, I didn‘t hear you.
A No, no sir.
At a later portion of the record:
Q And again just so the record is clear, it was not your idea to bar Jane from the facility, was it?
A No, sir.
The questions continued and the transcript reveals the further exchange:
Q Mr. Bigalke, you knew that Jane was working with Sharon and has been for the last two years?
A Yes, sir.
Q You know, for example, in the guardianship trial that she was attempting to teach her to speak and open her mouth and do other things of that sort, didn‘t you?
A I don‘t know at that particular time, but she worked with her, I realize that.
Q During the process of the guardianship matter you indicated to your attorney that you didn‘t object to her continuing that, didn‘t you?
A I don‘t recall.
Q That‘s possible, though, isn‘t it, sir?
A Probably.
Q You probably said that?
A Probably.
Q And you have never specifically told Miss Hoyt not to continue working with Sharon yourself, have you?
A I don‘t believe so.
Q You certainly never told Miss Hoyt not to visit Sharon?
A I don‘t believe so.
The foregoing testimony is reinforced by testimony of defendant in answer to a question by her counsel:
Q Have еither Mr. or Mrs. Bigalke ever advised you to stop your activities or not see Sharon?
A Never.
We hold that the defendant through her offer of proof made out a sufficient prima facie defense of bona fide claim of right to require the case to be submitted to a finder of fact where the burden is on the state to establish the contrary beyond a reasonable doubt.
Contrary to the view expressed by the dissent, the nursing home is not without power to exclude disruptive persons from its premises. If a visitor on the nursing home premises is engaged in disruptive conduct, the nursing home has at the very least the right to seek а complaint for disorderly conduct pursuant to
The order of the district court appellate panel affirming the judgment of conviction in the Hennepin County Municipal Court is reversed.
SCOTT, Justice (dissenting).
I must respectfully dissent. The majority opinion, when carried to its logical conclusion, conflicts with sound public policy. Although it is understandable that certain sympathies are generated by the defendant‘s well-intended actions, these particular facts should not be applied to reduce the historical application of the trespass statute to a state of uselessness.
Under the majority opinion, only the guardian has authority to prevent disruptive individuals from visiting nursing home patients. The nursing home has no similar authority. Thus, once a guardian grants an individual permission to visit a patient, the nursing home may not request that individual to leave the premises. The operators of nursing homes and similar institutions will be powerless to use the trespass statute regardless of an individual‘s actions.
It is difficult to understand the basis for the majority‘s decision that the phrase “claim of right” in
Criminal intent is an essential element of the statutory offense of trespass, even though the statute is silent as to intent, and if the act prohibited is committed in good faith under claim of right or color of title, although the accused is mistaken as to his right, unless it is committed with force or violence of a breach of the peace, no conviction will lie, since it will not be presumed that the legislature intended to punish criminal acts committed in ignorance, by accident or under claim of right, and in the bona fide belief that land is the property of the trespasser, unless the terms of the statute forbid any other construction.
Id. (emphasis added).
The advisory committee comments to the 1963 Criminal Code also are instructive. That committee indicated:
The phrase “without claim of right” in the recommended clause is intended only to covered [sic] bona fide claims of right. A false claim would not be a claim at all.
Id. The “bona fide claims” obviously refers to situations in which the defendant‘s “offense was the product of inadvertence or unwariness.” State v. Quinnell, 277 Minn. 63, 70, 151 N.W.2d 598, 604 (1967). As in Quinnell, there was no mistake or inadvertence in regard to the defendant‘s conduct. She received a letter of exclusion, intentionally entered the premises, and refused to depart when requested to do so by the Minneapolis Police. Therefore, our decision in Quinnell mandates an affirmance of the lower court‘s decision.
Because I believe that the trespass statute has been violated, it is necessary to examine appellant‘s claim that she has a constitutional right to enter St. Mary‘s Rehabilitation Cеnter.
Appellant contends that her first amendment rights of speech and association have been abridged because St. Mary‘s Rehabilitation Center falls within the company town doctrine of Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 66 S.Ct. 276, 90 L.Ed. 265 (1946). Under Marsh, a private entity that has all the attributes of an ordinary municipality will be treated as a governmental entity, thereby satisfying the state action requirement.
I do not believe that St. Mary‘s Skilled Nursing Home is the functional equivalent of an ordinary municipality for first amendment purposes. Recent decisions from the United States Supreme Court indicate that Marsh is inapplicable unless the private property owner exercises all of the traditional functions of a municipality. See Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507, 520, 96 S.Ct. 1029, 1036, 47 L.Ed.2d 196 (1976) (large self-contained shopping center held not to be the functional equivalent of a municipality); Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551, 569, 92 S.Ct. 2219, 2229, 33 L.Ed.2d 131 (1972) (same). Because St. Mary‘s Skilled Nursing Home clearly lacks sufficient indicia of a municipality, the Marsh doctrine has no application. Since Marsh is inapplicable, appellant has no constitutional right to be on the premises. As no constitutional impediments mandate a contrary result, I would affirm the lower court‘s decision that appellant violated the trespass statute.