*1 рreclude action does not unlawful detainer asserting claims in an
them from those
appropriate action.
DECISION
The district court did not err deter-
mining parties’ claims in an unlawful judgment summary
detainer action be- prejudiced appellants
cause the were not summary proceedings, the record genuine
showed there were no issues of fact, respondent
material and the was enti- judgment as
tled to a matter law. appellants
The cannot a claim un- assert
der the Farm Credit Act Amendments be- regulations
cause the act nor its neither private
establish a cause of and be- action equitable may
cause claims not be asserted detainer an unlawful action. appellants precluded
The are from as- designation
serting their homestead claim
because claim was raised decided previous appeal.
in a appellants may
The not assert retali-
atory claim in an eviction unlawful detainer
action absent evidence of a landlord-tenant
relationship. appellants may alleged not assert
right they on the property to remain until right
exercise their of first refusal. The expressly
unlawful detainer statute allows
mortgagees possession recover
persons holding mortgage lands after
foreclosure.
AFFIRMED. Minnesota, Respondent,
STATE of SHOOP, Appellant.
David Paul
No. C2-87-2209. Appeals of Minnesota.
Court of
Sept. 23, 1988.
Review Granted Nov.
FACTS 22-23, 1986, night On the of October 24-year-old Timothy Hummel was mur- Austin, dеred in a field outside of Minneso- times, Hummel was shot three ta. range at close behind final shot delivered lay while he Brad the left ear unconscious. appellant Newman and recently the murder. Newman’s Newman, court, see State v. before this slip op. (Minn.Ct.App. C8-87-2344 June WESTLAW, 1988) on 1988 WL [available pleaded guilty second Newman 56341]. murder, degree sentencing and at court found that Newman had “aided Shoop during and after the mur- abetted Appellant’s ap- case arises from an der.” peal degree mur- of a conviction for second 609.19(1), 609.05 der under Minn.Stat. §§ appellant were friends who Newman together Appellant worked Austin. The evi- Newman both knew Hummel. presented demonstrated that neither dence appellant especially nor liked Newman past, disagree- each had Hummel. ments with Hummel. occasions, Newman was seen On several Gen., III, Humрhrey, Atty. Hubert H. discussing or heard Hummel’s death. On Gen., Kempainen, Atty. St. Paul R. Asst. appellant several of these occasions Paul, Evans, Atty., Nancy A. Mower Co. present. plan Each discussed was similar
Austin,
respondent.
actually
manner in which Hummel
to the
Defender,
Jones,
Paul
State Public
C.
Hummel, get-
namely, befriending
died—
ting
Defender,
Wolf,
Min-
Marie L.
Asst. Public
killing
him
and then
him.
drunk
neapolis,
appellant.
appellant
On the
people
and Newman were seen
several
FOLEY,
and decided
Considered
driving
Appel-
to be
around with Hummel.
P.J., and LANSING and
lant,
spent
Newman and Hummel
the eve-
SCHUMACHER, JJ., without oral
smoking marijuana
drinking
ning
аt
argument.
time,
closing
After
the three
various bars.
girlfriend’s
Newman’s
drove
towards
lights were
they
house. When
saw that no
OPINION
on,
gravel
New-
they drove down a
road.
FOLEY, Judge.
control of his car and slid into a
man lost
car,
to extricate the
ditch. Unable
Appellant David Paul
was convict-
walking towards
three of them started
degree murder under Minn.
ed of second
house.
Newman’s
609.19(1)
and 609.06
Stat. §§
appellant’s
testified at
trial.
appellant’s counsel
Newman
Newman,
accomplice According to
the three started
on corroboration of
pro- walking down some railroad tracks towards
testimony.
trial court
refused
house. Newman testified
stating
Newman’s
without
reasons.
posed instruction
get
to the car to
his
appellant went back
for a new trial.
We remand
crossing a field toward
cigarettes. While
ANALYSIS
house,
he heard a
Newman testified
his
Generally, the issuanсe of a re
around, and saw Hummel
gunshot, turned
quested jury instruction lies in the discre
Daniels,
tion of the trial court.
bleeding.
gunshot,
his knees
After the
In re
house, got
pickup
ran to his
his
Newman
view,
instructions must be viewed
got
he
to his car. When
and returned
Mosley,
as a whole. State v.
there,
appellant
hе called for
and Hummel
*3
461,
(Minn.Ct.App.1987),pet.
rev.
no answer. Newman then
but received
(Minn.
22, 1987).
Dec.
denied
house,
appel-
to his
where he saw
returned
(1986) specifies
Minn.Stat.
634.04
testified that when he
§
lant. Newman
corroborating
the need for
evidence when
Hummel,
really
appellant if he
shot
asked
accomplice
Specifically,
an
testifies.
the
appellant replied “yes.”
provides:
statute
helped appel-
testified that he
Newman
A
upon
conviction cannot be had
the
body after
up
dispose
lant clean
and
of the
testimony
accоmplice,
of an
it
unless
is
shooting.
appellant
took
the
Newman
corroborated
such other evidence as
body
nearby
to an
farm
the
abandoned
tends to convict the defendant of the
placed
body
a covered cistern.
offense,
commission of the
and the cor-
day
police
merely
The next
Newman saw
roboration is not sufficient if it
when
shows the commission of the offense or
shooting, he
cars at the scene of the
the circumstances thereof.
appellant
together. They dumped
fled
clothing
small
gun
Naturally,
and some bloоdied
into a
this statute is based
the in-
accomplice’s testimony
herent distrust an
Lyle, Minnesota. From there
creek near
Soltau,
evinces.
212 Minn.
See State
they headed north towards the Twin Cities
Thus,
(1942).
“trial
friends.
to visit
judges
duty
giving
are under the
of
a cau-
appellant
he and
Newman testified that
concerning
weight
to return to Austin via back roads
decided
testimony
accomplices.”
of the
of
ex
got
They hitch-
but
stuck near Faribault.
Tessmer,
55, 56,
Jeffrey v.
211 Minn.
rel.
days
eventually
couple
hiked for a
of
(1941).
7-8
300 N.W.
picked up by police and driven to
Although required
given,
to be
Owatonna.
give an instruction on
failure to
corrobora
trial court refused to
a
is not reversible error
no such
tion
Soltau,
requested.
charge was
regarding
re-
See
requested instruction
Minn. at
lant though appellant’s proposed instruction on ISSUE varied somewhat from the corroboration by refusing court err Did the trial instruction, presence standard of New instruct the thаt a conviction cannot in testimony man’s mandated that some upon accomplice testimony had unless it given.1 be struction be See Minnesota Practice, 3.18 evidence? CRIM.JIG is corroborated other Bradly person following is a Appellant requested instruction: In this case Nеwman charged De- who is with the same crime as guilty Defendant of a You cannot find guilty of You cannot find Defendant fendant. testimony person of a who has crime on the testimony crime, on his unless that testimo- a crime ny charged tes- been timony with that unless that is corroborated. other evidеnce is corroborated can corroborate the testi- The evidence that which tends to convict Defendant mony charged must in some substan- person of an crime. Such a who is degree accom- accomplice. confirm the truth of the is called an same crime argues carefully The state no have reviewed corrobo We case, necessary, in this and there ration instruction was instructions since court’s They accomplice. could be considered Newman was not an ar language which no witness, gue that Newman a “hostile еquivalent of statement the law of responsible” co-equally for the victim’s The trial accomplice testimony. court's are not An persuaded. murder. We ac so was fundamental er failure to instruct complice is one or could who has been See State trial. requiring a nеw ror the same 464, 475, convicted of offense with which Hopfe, 249 Minn. charged. been defendant has 687-88 Houle, instruction under The mandate inescapable It is an conclusion after total (1986) protect 684.04 exists to Minn.Stat. § evidence, review of the that Newman was based on the the defendаnt conviction Also, accomplice. the fact that New naturally testimony of a witness who pled guilty man to the same crime that shift, or avoid criminal inclined to diffuse appellant compels Mathiasen, *4 responsibility. State v. 267 finding accomplice. that Newman was an 399, 127 539 Minn. N.W.2d We of are mindful the recent decision of legislature by the or the Absent direction Supreme State v. the in Minnesota Court court, ignore to this supreme we decline Shamp, (Minn.1988), N.W.2d Id. protective instruction. applied where the court the harmless error reversing appeals permits are сited to no case that doctrine in the court of We Here, ignore reinstating error. The trial and a as us to fundamental conviction. in (un- Shamp, guilt strong refusal to instruct does not come evidence of is court’s par doubtedly testimony its influenced by within discretion. Given Newman's the of Newman, accomplice), in ticipation, proper a instruction on the law the the but case a accomplice testimony of was mandated. at bar there was written demand for a give any cautionary The failure to instruction in this instruction the law of accom- area, pliсe testimony, a which especially in the face of was denied. The written necessary accomplice is error instruction a request, compelling fundamental and integral jury's of granting part of a new trial.2 of the evaluation the crime, testimony guilt plice’s point to the of the the circumstances of the but the show corroborating you beyond evidence need not convince Defendant a reasonable doubt. by that defendant committed the crime. testimony itself You must bear in mind that enough It that it tends to show that defend- is accomplice inherently is cоnsidered un- of ant a crime and that taken committed with trustworthy. testimony accomplice you of an are con- The standard instruction on testimo- beyond a reasonable doubt that de- vinced ny provides: committed the crime. fendant guilty cannot of crime You find defendant a (Irrelevant omitted). portions pattern The in- testimony person who be on the of a could appears to be sufficient. See struction crime, charged testimony unless that with that Harris, (Minn.1987). evidence is corroborated other which tends a to convict of the crime. Such defendant aрpropriate grant new 2. The of a trial is the charged person who be for the same could has measure when fundamental error occurred. accomplice. crime is called an especially true This when the fundamental person In this case Newman is a could who requested jury error a instruction rela involves charged as be same crime defendant. proof. tive of See Becker v. to the standard guilty find of a crime You cannot defendant Co., Alloy Engineering Hardfacing & testimony testimony is cor- on his unless that (new (Minn.1987) granted in trial civil roborated. give сourt to where trial failed person you If find that Newman is a who proof punitive of on standard of instruction as with the same crime could Hamburg damages); see also State Bank of defendant, guilty you Stoeckmann, find defendant cannot 417N.W.2d testimony (Minn.Ct.App.1987), (Minn. 1988) a crime on his unless that testi- pet. of rev. denied Feb. mony (errors is corroborated. instructions are fundamental if they destroy charge, can corroborate the testi- of The evidence that substantial correctness miscarriage justice mony result in must do more than cause of or substan of an prejudice). merely was committed or show that a crime timony requiring evidence, could not be was fundamental error a proper verdict it. without new trial. We remand for a new trial. reached distinguish Skamp, there was We REMANDED. cautionary instruction. request for a no Shamp, supreme court said: SCHUMACHER, J., dissents. Defendаnt, conceding applica- that the years was 7 statute of limitations
ble
SCHUMACHER, Judge (dissenting).
cautionary instruc-
requesting
not
respectfully
Considering
I
dissent.
time,
deemed to have
proper
tion at the
overwhelming
guilt, indepen-
evidence of
right
complain about the
forfeited his
Newman,
testimоny
of
the re-
dent
to caution the
trial court’s failure
requested jury
instruction
fusal to
the conduct on which it could base
about
was within the sound discretion of the trial
rule,
plain error
a conviction. Under the
I
court.
would affirm.
could obtain relief from the
defendant
give such a cau-
trial сourt’s failure to
presented
prosecution
suffi-
if
only
independent
establishing
cient
evidence
sub-
seriously
failure
affected
court’s
guilt
Shoop.
Shoop
Newman and
only if the error was
rights
stantial
together
seen
Parker,
error.
prejudicial
including shortly
There
after it occurred.
is evidence that
and Newman dis-
it
Supreme
pri-
Minnesota
Court has held
cussed Hummel’s murder several times
Further,
error where the law
to be reversible
each of
or to Hummel’s death.
appro
accomplice testimony is involved and
*5
events similar to
these discussions involved
See
given.
wеre not
priate instructions
actually
Hummel
died. There were
how
475,
Hopfe, 249
Minn.
82 N.W.2d at
at
prints near the scene of the crime
boot
Parker, 417 N.W.2d
v.
State
687-88.
In
Shoop’s fin-
Shoop
to those
owned.
similar
(Minn.1988),
supreme court refer
643
found on
gerprints
palm prints
no curative
ences a number of сases where
dispose of Hum-
pickup
truck used to
requested and the harmless
instruction was
shirt,
body. Shoop’s
similar to one
mel’s
v. Suth
See State
applied.
rule
error
was
he wore on the
erlin,
238,
(Minn.1986);
241
396 N.W.2d
murder
away
a few feet
from the
found
Coleman,
777, 782-83
State
373 N.W.2d
Shoop and Newman
weapоn in a creek.
Caron,
State v.
(Minn.1985);
300 Minn.
area when the investi-
fled from the Austin
Ferguson
began.
finally,
And
Rick
gation
However,
a written
the case at bar involves
when Newman stated
testified that
request for an instruction which
it,”
in affirma-
Shoop nodded
“did
situation,
not
In this
we are
court denied.
tion.
refusal
to
freе to label
trial court’s
conviction,
independent,
sustain a
To
requested
as harm
grant
instruction
may
circumstan-
corroborating evidence
Caron,
See
less error.
300 Minn. at
Star,
Minn.
in nature. (where
court held
The trial DECISION given instruc- necessity any consider indepen- light of the considerable tion. give requested instruc- The failure to guilt presented to the dent evidence tes- on the corroboration tion jury, the trial court was within its discre- refusing give the
tion in instruction.
Although may the trial court have been give cautionary
on the safe side to
instruction, nevertheless, give the failure to
the instruction was not reversible error ample corroboration existed. See State, 289 Minn.
Cole v. (1971),(the cautionary failure to
instruction on corroboration was not re- ample error where
versible corroboration
existed and where the instruction was requested.)
not present goes
It is true that the one Cole,
step namely, further than that a cau- and de- Yet,
nied. it is clear the record that
defendant received a fair trial was not Cole, any rights.
denied fundamental See
For I would af-
firm the conviction. *6 Lou LAFFEN L.
Sandra a.k.a. Sandra
Laffen, guardian as sister and of Den- Laffen, Ray Ray
nis as and for Dennis
Laffen, Ward, Appellant,
AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE
COMPANY, Respondent.
No. C2-87-2064. Appeals
Court of of Minnesota.
Sept. 16, 1988.
Review Denied Nov. Hanson, Spilseth, Rodney M.
Donald C. Anderson, Willmar, Burgett Spilseth, & appellant. Schmidt, Thompson, Thomp-
William W. son, Thompson, Moody, Johnson & Will- mar, respondent.