*1 long in relatively deciding the received at time clearly that call was the case said a.m., sug jury’s request first mean and the does not it was a case” 1:15 “close merits; knew that is what gests jury long the that juries that often take a time decid- address of testimony was. The current ing the guilt cases when the evidence is irrelevant; repe girl totally friend was the strong. conceding While this that was not testimony her that her address at tition of case,” appeals a “close the court of said West Seventh the time of the offense was any denying requеsts error in that the was helped jury in St. Paul would have “plainly prejudicial” repetition because the Granting re properly. decide case testimony would have shown that might helped jury quests have decide bearing state’s on the issue of illogically, but that is not the test case did not rule time out alibi defense. 416 request any is reasonable. 795. The at trouble with this is event, request fact is reasonable damning context all of necessarily does not mean guilt, evidence of defendant’s de- alibi request. deny no court has discretion to simply fense was worthy belief (Minn. Daniels, 332 State v. N.W.2d 172 jury. reasonable of appeals’ 1983). criticizing While the trial court’s suggests statement that it based its deter- approach, apparently wooden the court prejudice mination of its assessment appeals effect offers in stead possible error, impact any not on the approach of always granting wooden re likely impact of the error aon reasonable one, quest, an if the even unreasonable jury. strength Given the of the evidence of jury impasse. it is an says at factors, guilt and other we con- (4) reject ap We also the court of of appeals’ clude that conclusion peals’ any denying conclusion that error prejudicial wrong. error was is prejudicial. requests was Defendant Reversed and of conviction literally caught posses was red-handed in reinstated. burglary prop sion of tools and the stolen erty just burgled building a block from the burglary. hours after the It is obvious his condition he had been secret rain, waiting himself area,
police to clear out of the had then way
made his to the car. The fact that the fogged up suggests
car windows were peri dеfendant had car waited for a SWANSON, al., Respondents, John F. et od gave of time also. The fact that he v. obviously police false statement to the af stopped very damning. ter he was BLOOMINGTON, CITY OF damning Most of all is the evidence that Petitioner, Appellant. squad when went the officer back to the No. C3-86-782. car, off nylon defendant took his black coat the burglary and threw it over tools Supreme of Minnesota. Court dealing floor of the back seat. Our cases March prejudicial are error this context McMorris, summarized in State v.
N.W.2d 593 case appeals
which the court of relied in much analysis,
of its Spaulding, State (Minn.1980), easily
N.W.2d 870 distin
guishable on point expressly that we
described that case a “close case.”
Here the state’s evidence of defendant’s
guilt very strong. jury That the took *2 Ornstein, Bloomington R.
David Berg, City Atty., Atty., Associate Eric R. Wieland, Atty., Bloom- Asst. Henry E. ington, appellant. Waters, Fling, J. single-family L. John feet with a
Matthew
house. Cadmus
Grannis, Jr.,
Bloomington,
applied
Vance B.
South
for approval of
preliminary
Paul,
respondents.
subdividing
plat
St.
final
into
the lot
two resi-
single-family
dential
lots. The city council
Peskar,
Paul,
Stanley
St.
amicus
G.
curi-
(hereinafter council)
public hearings
held
ae.
reports
and received written
from city’s
*3
Planning
of
City
Director
and the
Forester.
Planning
The Director of
described the like-
ly results of the creation of a nеw homesite
OPINION
—jeopardy
vegetation
lot,
to the
on the
vegetation
surrounding
stress
of the
WAHL, Justice.
properties,
possibility
increased
of tree dis-
John Swanson and Danald Cadmus
damage
ease and wind
recommended
—and
brought
declaratory judgment
action in
request
subdivision
be denied.
Hennepin County
challeng-
District Court
City
The
Forester concurred. A wildlife
city
Bloomington
council’s denial of
biologist, testifying on
of
neigh-
behalf
application
to subdivide a residential lot
bors, similarly
disruptive
described the
ef-
Timberglade
2nd Addition into two
clearings
area,
fect of
in the woodland
loss
residential
lots. Swanson and Cadmus
of windbreak benefits
of
and loss wildlife
sought
city’s
to
establish
action
A
neighbors spoke op-
habitat.
of
number
arbitrary, capricious
and unreasonable
posing the
Speaking
subdivision.
in favor
they requested
and
an order that would
Cadmus, Swanson,
of the subdivision were
or,
alternative,
compel
subdivision
landscape
presented
and a
architect
taking.
would find that there was a
The
attorney.
Cadmus and Swanson’s
court,
district
after
granted summary judgment
to the сity.
The
council based its
to
decision
appeals
of
The court
reversed and remand-
deny approval
preliminary
of the
and final
ed,
(1986), holding
(5) design of the submit That acquire through discovery. hoped to are like- proposed improvements or the court determined that because an district environmental ly to causе substantial complete verbatim record of the accurate damage. council was avail (6) the subdivision design That the able, proper it was to decide case based will type improvements rather on a review the record than health, safety, or detrimental conducting of the the trial public. general welfare of the Rapids, (7) subdivision design That the of the require To de type improvements will con- or the case, in this in the district novo court’s flict with easements of record view, infringe would on the decision-mak by judgment of easements established ing process weigh against economy. The policy *4 findings the made Specifically, council council, reviewed record of the court the (3), (5), (6) paragraphs and, of section finding support under and evidentiary for the 16.05.01(e), proposed concluding findings that the a rational and basis decision, granted summary the council’s in subdivision would result substantial de- city. ap The court judgment the of site, vegetation subject struction of on the peals single reversed on the large opening creating a which would not City Rapids that Honn v. Coon ground ques- in only property detrimental to of the give respondents a trial de novo to veg- jeopardize existing tion but would opportunity relevant addition adjacent The properties. etation on council al evidence when the had neither findings adopted the and memoranda of the agreed acquiesced nor in submission of Planning City of the Forester Director and by the case held and and, significant of on the basis destruc- granting summary judgment of finding vegetation of in tion made v. City Swanson inaрpropriate. of 16.05.01(e)(3),that site was not suit- § 719, Bloomington, 395 N.W.2d (Minn. 723 type development able for the of or use App.1986). contemplated. made the find- granted We to examine the mat- review 16.05.01(e)(5) of ing in on the basis § the context of our decisions in Honn in ter disruption and environmental to the site 409, City Rapids, v. Coon 313 N.W.2d Timberglade the entire subdivision that Broadcasting, and Hubbard Inc. v. City of by plat. approving would be created (Minn.1982), Afton, 323 N.W.2d 757 to har- Finally, neighboring the council noted cases, modify, monize our and to neces- property in owners were unanimous procedure sary, the for review opposition plat, to the and deter- decisions set out in Honn. Our review is planned mined that the removal trees first, focused on two issues: whether a vegetation subject property and court, declaratory judgment district in a disrupt integrity would the overall challenging of a action the denial subdivi- thereby negative woodland and have a ef- grant application, may summary judg- sion general persons fect welfare of on of a ment based its review record con- residing in Timberglade subdivision. case, sisting, municipal body's finding On this basis the council made the memoranda, findings accompanying and 16.05.01(e)(6). in § hearings brought Swanson Cadmus this action municipal body, well as memorandum challenging district second, applicant; submitted application. subdivision properly granted district court summary judgment moved for summary judgment city. council, including record before tran- I. hearings
scripts of the other plaintiffs submitted. The moved for an Before we determine whether compelling granted discovery order and asked court in this case summa-
3H
the record
We
ry judgment on
made
determined
College
Northwestern
council,
requires
City
or whether Honn
in v.
Arden Hills that
scope
case,
review
for zoning
such
it is useful to
to be used
every
reflect
matters would
be the same as
approach to
that used
our traditional
matters.
for state adminis-
agency
trative
Docking
Storage,
865,
decisions.
Bear
Inc.
N.W.2d
White
Lake,
We
City
indicated that the
v.
Bear
re-
White
view would be of the
(Minn.1982),
we considered the
made before
zoning body.
is,
the local
That
judiciary
countermanding
zon-
review
role of
by the district court would be
municipal
made
decisions reached
officials
municipal
supreme
record and the
authority
court’s
concluded
“[t]he
would make its review on the same
management
record.
to interfere in the
of munici-
said, quoting
We
Reserve Mining Co.
pal
is,
be,
v.
affairs
and should
limited
Herbst,
808, 824,
256 N.W.2d
(Minn.1977),
sparingly invoked.” We reiterated the rule
is our
indepen-
function to make an
“[I]t
we had set out
Coon
dent examination of an administrative
governing
Rapids
standard of
review
agency’s record and decision and arrive at
zoning matters: “The standard of
our own conclusions as to the
matters,
propriety of
namely,
the same for
according
determination
without
zoning authority’s
whether the
action was
* * *
special deference to the same review con-
reasonable
Is there a
ba-
‘reasonable
ducted
the trial court.” Id.
sis’ for the decision? or is the decision
‘unreasonable, arbitrary
capricious’?
Then in
Rapids,
Honn v.
of
case,
*5
‘reasonably
the decision
debatable’?”
presented
were
we
appealed by
a
176,
Hоnn,
at
quoting
N.W.2d
city
below,
from an adverse decision
N.W.2d at 417.
where the record before the trial court was
completely inadequate.
that,
that ease we
except
We said
in those rare cases
on
held
review
the record was not
city’s
in which the
decision has no rational
appropriate.
Concerned that councils and ordinarily boards did not make records of II. proceedings complete as and as for- The first issue whether a district agency, mal as those a state we set out a court, in declaratory challenging action procedure zoning review matters application, may denial a subdivision permitted declaratory judg- use of a grant summary judgment re based its ment action which the are enti- consisting municipal view a record aof tled to a trial. at Id. body’s findings, memoranda submitted parties, directly verbatim Honn did not overrule North- hearings. and, facts, College western under its own its lan- We proper decision but broad held Hubbard dis-
was
mandating
evеry
may
trial in
trict
guage,
case
conducted
necessary
every case.
go beyond
permit
what is
certain
denials on the record be-
unreasonable,
unfair,
nor
where a
very
It is
the record
that case was
cause
complete
has'
to make a
complete.
failed
clear
at 761. We
Id.
noted
adequate
proceedings
in zon-
record of
‘city councils and
boards
“[w]here
* * *
ing
require
prove
matters to
proceed-
do not
make records of their
of its decision before a district
the basis
ings
complete and
those
formal as
commission,’
agency
administrative
or
state
proper procedure
persuaded by
are
curiae
We
amicus
provides
district court
addi-
‘[n]ew
League
has
of Minnesota Cities
may
received at
tional evidence
trial.’
salutary
Amicus
had a
effect.1
advises
Rapids, Honn v.
Honn,
many
in reliance on
cities
added).”
(emphasis
415-16
Id. at n. 3.
expense of
tran-
have borne the
court,
It
important
was
Hubbard
scripts
proceedings.
of their
These cities
determining the fullness and fairness of
findings
carefully
supported
have
made
hearing
council
transcribed evidence so that their
issue,
permit
plaintiffs
that the
had
decisions,
challenged,
would not be decid-
opportunity, by
order of the district
by a
ed
district court on
basis of evi-
court,
augment
by stipulation
the record
dence never considered
them. Accord-
motion,
amicus,
they
opportunity
of which
did
city hired a
one
state hear-
holding
themselves. The
avail
ing examiner to take evidence in a
however,
grounded,
on the clearness
15-day hearing
matter which
in a
resulted
3,487
completeness of the
pages
record on which the
transcript.
based its
Our
decision.
conclu-
It becomes clear that this
and ex-
effort
parties acquiesed
sion
that both
dis-
pense
if every property
would be wasted
permit
determining
trict court’s
both the
zoning request is
owner whose
denied can
issue on
denial and
constitutional
demand that the
retried in
case be
a district
particularly
*6
record went
to
constitution-
if
procedure,
rigidly
court. Such a
fol-
al
Even
issue.
had Hubbard
ac-
every сase,
lowed
could lead
the result
to
quiesced,
already suggested
had
owner,
property
knowing
compo-
that a
trial
in its
on the constitutional issue
memo-
particular
council,
might
sition of a
partial
support
of its motion for
randum
part
evidence,
withhold
of the relevant
summary judgment
permit
denial
knowing
put
it
in when
could be
the matter
issue.2
when the court considered this Thus, matter. court now this modifies III. Honn to the extent that a full trial de novo The second issue is whether the dis required certain cases summary judg granted trict court appeals court of could not have known city. is on ment Since review it decided when this matter that Honn was question the city is whether modified, correctly to be as we now do. It decision reasonable or wheth existed, in applied the law my as it then unreasonable, arbitrary capri er it was interpretations opinion. New law аnd new Rapids, v. City cious. Honn properly the are function of at 417. council is Code, Bloomington quarrel I section 16.- have no with this court’s 05.01(e)(5) deny prelimi approval desire to reduce trials de novo plat infringing final nary or if it finds “that de court and to avoid courts’ decision-making process municipalities. sign subdivision or part of improvements likely are to cause substan That is this court's function—to outline, damage.” city's guide Di tial environmental circumscribe and *8 Planning, part and system supervisory Forester its law rector biologist develоpment powers. had an inade- likely all described wildlife review, effects, including so quate loss of record for environmental procedure vegetation trees and other both on lot court remanded and set out a damage reviewing zoning procedure adjacent properties, wind matters. That and on applicable good law and loss of windbreak effect. is still and still remains cases, finding now circum- likelihood of substan in future but this court damage a full trial the record fair sup is thus scribes when tial environmental providеs complete. ported by the evidence and ra- courts, Thus, in 3. future cases trial trial, Minnesota, must denying
before full determine Respondent, STATE of municipality record whether the A meets this new criterion. record before SMITH, Michael Edward Mike a/k/a transcribed, might fully a municipality be Vukovich, Smith, Mike a/k/a a/k/a proceedings adequate, but were the fair “Mike,” Appellant. complete? determining: This involves hearing appro- were examiners utilized No. C4-88-35. priate proceedings? were witnesses sub- Supreme Court of Minnesotа.
ject questioning by parties? other opinions expressed? there foundation for April 1, 1988. proof permitted? were offers of were matters outside the record relied on? appropriate
were permitted? continuances
was relevant evidence received? were
complete contemporaneous findings made municipalities’ support decision?
and other such considerations. In other
words, court must determine itself was fair and
adequate op- had a full views,
portunity to their wheth- proceedings
er the reflected the will of the
decision-makers and not 313).
(majority opinion at 17, 1985, In the June resolution
adopted by here, among council
other factors was a statement to the effect upon experience relied area, knowledge greater without I
specificity. don’t know what that was. future, general such statements augmented by
should proper findings,
joined governing majority
body. exactly Parties should know what
the decision-makers relied on. The test just neigh-
isn’t Here,
borhood opposition alone. rest of justifies expressed the result
this case.
YETKA, Justice.
I join special concurrence Mr. Popovich.
Justice