State of Minnesota, Respondent,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A19-0653

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Nicholas Wallace Johnson,
Appellant.

Filed December 7, 2020
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded
Bratvold, Judge

Becker County District Court
File No. 03-CR-18-1966

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Jennifer Workman Jesness,
Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Michael Everson, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul,
Minnesota; and

Brian W. McDonald, Becker County Attorney, Detroit Lakes, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Slieter, Presiding Judge; Bratvold, Judge; and Cochran,
Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
BRATVOLD, Judge
In this appeal from a final judgment of conviction for third-degree burglary ,
appellant asks us to review two issues. First, he argues that the record evidence does not
establish that the barn involved in the burglary is a “building,” as defined by the relevant
2
statute. Second, appellant argues that record evidence does not support the full amount of
the district court’s restitution award . Because the record evidence shows the barn was
“suitable for affording human shelter,” we conclude that the barn is a building under Minn.
Stat. § 609.581, subd. 2 (2018), and affirm appellant’s conviction. But because the record
evidence fails to sufficiently establish the amount of the victim’s loss for damage to her
pickup truck, we reverse that part of the restitution award and remand for further
proceedings, consistent with this opinion. Thus, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and
remand.
FACTS
The state charged appellant Nicholas Wallace Johnson with one count of
third-degree burglary under Minn. Stat. § 609.582, subd. 3 (2018). Johnson pleaded not
guilty, waived his jury -trial rights, and proceeded to a bench trial. The following
summarizes the evidence received during the one-day trial.
C.S. owns ten acres in rural Becker County with a farmhouse and a barn. She stores
personal property in her barn. On August 24, 2018, C.S.’s groundskeeper arrived to mow
the lawn and saw a stranger outside and an unfamiliar red pickup truck backed up to the
barn. The groundskeeper was suspicious and blocked the barn’s driveway with his car. As
the groundskeeper got out of his car, the stranger got into the red pickup truck and drove
away; the red pickup went around the groundskeeper by driving into a ditch alongside the
driveway. The groundskeeper later described the red pickup as having a topper with the
sign “Meadowland Surveying.” The groundskeeper also testified that the red pickup
headed in the direction of the town of Richwood.
3
The groundskeeper notified C.S., who asked her son to meet with the
groundskeeper. The groundskeeper and C.S.’s son examined the barn and C.S.’s 1992
pickup truck parked near the barn. C.S.’s son testified that the barn door had been removed,
its hinges ripped off. They found C.S.’s pickup truck on a jack with its hood open. The
truck’s engine parts were removed, rendering it inoperable, and the radio was missing .
Other items were also missing from the barn. They called the police.
Two hours after the groundskeeper saw the red pickup, a Richwood resident saw a
red pickup truck take a hard right turn to avoid another car. The pickup truck entered a
ditch and hit a utility pole. Police responded to the scene, but could not find the driver. The
police searched the red pickup truck, which had a topper with a “Meadowland Surveying”
sign. Police found four items with Johnson’s name: an identification card, a letter, a receipt,
and a prescription bottle. Police called C.S.’s son to the scene, where he identified several
items in the red pickup truck as belonging to C.S. and usually stored in C.S.’s barn. One of
the items was a mini refrigerator, which was damaged when the red pickup truck hit the
utility pole.
During the trial, the state offered testimony from the groundskeeper, C.S., C.S.’s
son, the Richwood resident who witnessed the accident, two police officers, a police
investigator, and a man who saw Johnson on the day of and near the burglary. The state
introduced Johnson’s statement to police, given after a Miranda warning. Johnson denied
being in the area on the day of the burglary.
4
Johnson called two witnesses, his girlfriend and his sister, both of whom testified
that Johnson was with them, or babysitting his sister’s children, during the time of the
burglary.
In its written findings of fact, the district court found Johnson guilty of third-degree
burglary. The district court found “highly credible” the witness who identified Johnson in
the courtroom and testified that he saw him on the day of the burglary and after the red
pickup truck had been abandoned. The district court credited the witness’s testimony that
Johnson was “walking out of the woods less than a mile away from the site of the crash.”
The district court noted that the witness saw a distinctive scar and tattoos on Johnson. The
district court rejected the credibility of Johnson’s alibi witnesses and “note[d] a gap in the
timeline.”
The district court imposed an executed sentence of 39 months and later awarded
restitution of $2,100, based on C.S’s affidavit, submitted under Minn. Stat. § 611A.04,
subd. 1(a) (2018). Johnson appealed and moved to stay his appeal for postconviction
proceedings involving the restitution award. This court granted the stay. Following a
restitution hearing, the district court modified the restitution award to $1,100. This court
reinstated Johnson’s appeal.
D E C I S I O N
I. The record evidence is sufficient to support Johnson’s third-degree burglary
conviction because C.S. ’s barn is a structure suitable for affording shelter to
human beings.

Appellate courts “review criminal bench trials the same as jury trials when
determining whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain convictions.” State v. Hough ,
5
585 N.W.2d 393, 396 (Minn. 1998). “When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence,
appellate courts carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the
legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the jury to reasonably conclude that
the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was
convicted.” State v. Griffin, 887 N.W.2d 257, 263 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted).
Appellate courts review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume
the fact-finder disbelieved any evidence that conflicted with the verdict. Id.
We test the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction by examining it
given the elements of the offense. A third-degree burglary conviction requires the state to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant (1) entered a building, (2) without
consent, and (3) with intent to steal. Minn. Stat. § 609.582, subd. 3; 10A Minnesota
Practice, CRIMJIG 17.10, 11 (2016). A “building” is “a structure suitable for affording
shelter for human beings including any appurtenant or connected structure.” Minn. Stat.
§ 609.581, subd. 2.
Here, the parties dispute the sufficiency of the evidence in light of the meaning of
“building” in the burglary statute. “Because the meaning of a criminal statute is intertwined
with the issue of whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant
violated the statute, it is often necessary to interpret a criminal statute when evaluating an
insufficiency-of-the-evidence claim . . . . We review issues of statutory interpretation de
novo.” State v. Vasko, 889 N.W.2d 551, 556 (Minn. 2017).
Statutory interpretation requires that we “ascertain and effectuate the intention of
the legislature.” Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2018); State v. Struzyk , 869 N.W.2d 280, 284
6
(Minn. 2015). “When legislative intent is clear from the statute’s plain and unambiguous
language,” we apply its plain meaning. State ex rel. Duncan v. Roy, 887 N.W.2d 271, 276
(Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted). Here, neither party contends that the phrase, “suitable
for affording shelter” is ambiguous. We agree and therefore apply the plain meaning of the
statute.
Johnson argues that C.S.’s barn is not a building because no record evidence shows
it was “suitable for affording shelter.” Johnson contends that “the central theme amongst
[Minnesota] cases is the structure’s ability to shelter humans from the elements.” The state
responds that the statutory definition of building sets a low bar, which the record evidence
satisfies.
We are aided by considering the context of the third-degree burglary statute. See,
e.g., State v. Garcia- Gutierrez, 844 N.W.2d 519, 521- 525 (Minn. 2014) (“words and
phrases of the statute must be understood in light of their context” and interpreting mens
rea requirement in first -degree burglary statute). For example, other statutory provisions
suggest that a building “suitable for affording shelter” differs from a residence.
Second-degree burglary, a more serious offense than third-degree burglary, requires the
state to prove the defendant entered a “dwelling.” Min n. Stat. § 609.582, subd. 2(a)(1)
(2018). A “dwelling” is a “building used as permanent or temporary residence.” Minn. Stat.
§ 609.581, subd. 3 (2018). The legislature’s definition of “dwelling” suggests that a
building “suitable for affording shelter” is not a permanent or temporary residence. With
this context in mind, we turn to the record evidence and relevant caselaw.
7
At the trial, C.S.’s son described the barn as “old” and “beat up.” C.S. and other
witnesses also testified that the barn has a roof, four walls, and a “garage-sized” sliding
door opening to the east, which is the main entrance. Inside the barn, C.S. stored personal
property like a motorcycle, tools, a mini refrigerator, and dirt-bike equipment. A shop was
attached to the outside of the barn’s north-facing wall but collapsed many years ago,
leaving only the north-facing concrete-block wall. The former shop was described as “just
a big concrete slab.”1
Caselaw applying the third-degree burglary statute establishes that a broad range of
buildings is suitable to afford human shelter. Courts have determined various structures to
be buildings under the third-degree burglary statute, including: a mini storage unit,
In re Welfare of R.O.H., 444 N.W.2d 294, 294-95 (Minn. App. 1989); a warehouse, State
v. Gerou, 168 N.W.2d 15, 17 (Minn. 1969); an ice rink open on one side because of
construction, State v. Bronson, 259 N.W.2d 465, 466 (Minn. 1977); and a farm structure
without heat or electricity attached to a dairy barn, State v. Walker, 319 N.W.2d 414, 417
(Minn. 1982).
Johnson contends that no evidence shows that the barn was heated or cooled, had
electricity or plumbing, was free of pests, had walls lacking holes or cracks, or was actually
used for human shelter. While this is accurate, Johnson cites no caselaw establishing that ,
without these qualities, a building is not “suitable for affording shelter.” The state argues

1 Johnson’s brief to this court describes the barn as “partially collapsed.” The record,
however, establishes that the former shop had collapsed, not the barn.
8
that the barn is suitable for affording shelter, even though it is missing some amenities,
because it is like the mini storage unit in R.O.H. and the unfinished ice rink in Bronson.
In R.O.H., this court contemplated whether a mini storage unit is a building under
the third-degree burglary statute.2 444 N.W.2d at 294. The mini storage unit had no heat
or air conditioning, no electricity, no plumbing, and served no other purpose than to store
personal property. Id. We affirmed the appellant’s juvenile delinquency adjudication,
holding that it “is obvious that the purpose of the storage units, which is the storage of
personal property, required that the units provide shelter from the elements.” Id. at 295.
We agree with the state that C.S.’s barn is like the mini storage unit in R.O.H.,
because the barn was used to store personal property and lacked amenities such as heating,
electricity, and plumbing. Thus, even though there is no record evidence that people
actually used the barn for shelter, we may infer that the barn “provid [ed] shelter from the
elements,” just like the mini storage unit in R.O.H. Id. at 294.
In Bronson, the Minnesota Supreme Court considered whether a basketball court
undergoing construction to be converted into an ice-skating arena was a building under the
third-degree burglary statute, even though one wall was open at the time of the offense. 3

2 R.O.H. applied the same definition of building applicable to Johnson’s conviction. See
Minn. Stat. § 609.581, subd. 2 (1988).

3 Bronson applied a somewhat different definition of building, but the key phrase was the
same as the one applicable to Johnson’s conviction. The definition considered in Bronson
provided that “‘[b]uilding’ includes a dwelling or other structure suitable for affording
shelter for human beings or appurtenant to or connected with a structure so adapted, and
includes portions of such structure as are separately occupied.” Minn. Stat. § 609.58,
subd. 1(2) (1976) (emphasis added) (repealed 1983).
9
259 N.W.2d at 465. After the jury found the defendant guilty of third-degree burglary, he
moved for a new trial, arguing the ice arena was not a building under the statute. The district
court denied the motion. On appeal, the supreme court affirmed the conviction, reasoning
that even though the structure was open to the elements at one end, it “retained its character
as a ‘building’ because it in fact provided shelter for the people who were working inside
it.” Id. at 466.
Johnson contends that C.S.’s barn differs from the ice arena in Bronson because the
barn “was not temporarily under construction and no evidence was elicited demonstrating
its ability to shelter human beings.” The statutory definition of building, however, does not
provide that people must actually use the structure for shelter. Rather, the statute provides
the building must be “suitable for affording shelter.” Minn. Stat. § 609.581, subd. 2
(emphasis added); see also R.O.H., 444 N.W.2d at 295 (holding mini storage unit is
suitable for affording shelter because it was used for storing personal property).
Lastly, Johnson argues that C.S.’s barn is most like the structure in State ex rel.
Webber v. Tahash, where the district court granted the defendant a writ of habeas corpus
and the state appealed. 152 N.W.2d 497, 500 (Minn. 1967). The Minnesota Supreme Court
affirmed the district court’s order granting a new trial after determining that a toolshed on
an unoccupied farm was not a building under the third-degree burglary statute.4 Id. at 502.

4 Webber applied the same definition of building as Bronson, so the key phrase was the
same as the one applicable to Johnson’s conviction. The third-degree burglary statute
examined in Webber provided that “‘[b]uilding’ includes a dwelling or other structure
suitable for affording shelter for human beings or appurtenant to or connected with a
structure so adapted, and includes portions of such structure as are separately occupied.”
Minn. Stat. § 609.58, subd. 1(2) (emphasis added).
10
The supreme court stated that a new trial was appropriate because the case “went to the
jury under the assumption that the shed was a ‘building’” and the jury found the defendant
guilty. Id. at 500-501.
In analyzing whether the toolshed was a building, Webber distinguished
“suitability” from “capability” in affording shelter.
Our statute neither includes structures which are merely
‘capable’ of affording shelter, nor does it require that the
structure ‘afford suitable shelter.’ To be capable of affording
shelter and to be suitable for affording shelter are two different
things; and to be suitable for affording shelter and to afford
suitable shelter are also two different matters. . . . The statute
clearly requires that the structure be ‘suitable for affording
shelter,’ not that it be capable of affording shelter —even
though structures capable of affording shelter could be made
suitable for doing so.

Id. at 501. Based on this language in Webber, Johnson argues that while C.S.’s barn may
have been capable of affording shelter, no evidence established it was suitable for affording
shelter.
While Johnson’s argument has merit, we are not persuaded because there are key
differences between the record evidence in Webber and in this appeal. The pivotal evidence
in Webber was the property owner’s testimony that none of the structures on his farm were
suitable for human shelter. Id. The supreme court reasoned that the shed owner’s testimony
“specifically [took] the shed out of this definition.” Id. The record here lacks similar
testimony or evidence and, instead, includes testimony that C.S.’s barn was used to store
personal property, which was sufficient in R.O.H., 444 N.W.2d at 295. Also, the procedural
posture of the two appeals is different. The supreme court in Webber affirmed the district
11
court’s decision to order a new trial, and did not reverse the conviction, as Johnson requests
here. 152 N.W.2d at 502.
To conclude, whether humans actually used the barn for shelter does not determine
whether it is suitable for affording shelter under the third -degree burglary statute. See
Webber, 152 N.W.2d at 501 (“Our statute neither includes structures which are merely
‘capable’ of affording shelter, nor does it require that the structure ‘afford suitable
shelter.’” (emphasis added)). Here, the record evidence established that C.S. stored her
personal property in the barn, which had four walls, a roof, and a door. Thus, we affirm
Johnson’s conviction; the evidence is sufficient to establish that C.S.’s barn was a building
under the third-degree burglary statute because it provided shelter from the elements and
was suitable for affording human shelter.
II. The district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding restitution for the
damages to the barn door, but the record evidence does not support the
restitution award for C.S.’s pickup truck.

A crime victim “has the right to receive restitution as part of the disposition of a
criminal charge . . . if the offender is convicted.” Minn. Stat. § 611A.04, subd. 1(a). The
purpose of restitution is restoring victims “to the same financial position they were in
before the crime.” State v. Palubicki, 727 N.W.2d 662, 666 (Minn. 2007). Evidence
supporting restitution “must describe the items or elements of loss, itemize the total dollar
amounts of restitution claimed, and specify the reasons justifying these amounts . . . .”
Minn. Stat. § 611A.04, subd. 1(a). The state has the burden of proof at a restitution hearing.
Minn. Stat. § 611A.04, subd. 3(a) (2018). But the state need not establish a victim’s exact
out-of-pocket loss, rather the state must show “with reasonable specificity” the items and
12
dollar amount of losses. State v. Keehn, 554 N.W.2d 405, 408 (Minn. App. 1996), review
denied (Minn. Dec. 17, 1996). A district court “may order restitution only for losses that
are directly caused by, or follow naturally as a consequence of, the defendant’s crime.”
State v. Boettcher, 931 N.W.2d 379, 381 (Minn. 2019).
A district court has broad discretion to order restitution. State v. Riggs, 865 N.W.2d
679, 682 (Minn. 2015). “[T]he district court’s order will not be reversed absent an abuse
of that discretion. The district court’s factual findings will not be disturbed unless they are
clearly erroneous.” State v. Andersen, 871 N.W.2d 910, 913 (Minn. 2015). As long as a
sufficient factual basis supports the restitution award, we defer to the district court’s
discretion. State v. Thole, 614 N.W.2d 231, 234 (Minn. App. 2000) (citing Keehn,
554 N.W.2d at 407). Whether a restitution award follows the statutory requirements is a
question of law that we review de novo. Id.
The district court at first ordered Johnson to pay restitution of $2,100 based on
C.S.’s affidavit, which listed $500 for the barn door, $1,500 for the pickup truck, and $100
for the mini refrigerator. After Johnson challenged the amount of the award, the district
court held a restitution hearing. The state called C.S., who testified that she had no
professional estimates for the cost to repair either the barn door or her pickup truck. After
the hearing, the district court modified its restitution order by reducing the restitution award
for C.S.’s pickup truck to $500, for a total restitution award of $1,100.
Johnson argues the district court abused its discretion by awarding restitution of
$500 for the barn door and $500 for C.S’s pickup truck because the record does not
establish the losses with reasonable specificity. Johnson does not challenge the district
13
court’s award of $100 for the mini refrigerator. The state argues that the restitution award
is supported by C.S.’s testimony and exhibits.
A. The district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding restitution of
$500 for damage to the barn door.
C.S. testified that she estimated the cost of parts and labor to repair the solid-wood
door, replace the metal tracks, and reinstall the barn door was $500. At the restitution
hearing, C.S. testified about repairs to the barn door.
Q: Now regarding the barn door, can you describe what the
barn door looked like or how it was situated before the
burglary?
A: It’s an old barn. It had a track with wheels on it that slid.
Q: Now when you say a track with wheels, is that how you
opened it up?
A: Yes. You slide it open.
Q: Okay. And after the burglary, what was the condition of the
door?
A: The door was on the ground and the track was on the
ground. It had been ripped off the wall.
. . . .
Q: Now, [C.S.], you put in your affidavit $500 to repair. How
did you come up with that amount?
A: It was just a ballpark figure of what I thought parts and what
somebody would charge to come and do it. I have no idea but
I figured that was the least anybody would come and hang a
new door for me.
Q: And is that door a pretty heavy door?
A: Yes. It’s solid wood.

Johnson argues that C.S.’s testimony is not “specific enough” to support a restitution
award, relying on Keehn. The state responds that Keehn involved a very different record.
In Keehn, this court reviewed a restitution award of $541.97 for a victim’s
“misc[ellaneous] [c]ash receipts from setting up new household.” 554 N.W.2d at 407.
There, the district court convicted the defendant of fifth-degree assault and harassing
14
conduct and ordered restitution for the victim’s relocation expenses. Id. at 406. The only
record evidence was the victim’s affidavit, which stated she “had to buy everything from
scratch from salt and pepper to bar soap, ” but “[t]here [was] nothing in the record that
specifie[d] the miscellaneous items needed or the amounts spent as a result of [the victim’s]
relocation.” Id. at 408. This court reversed and remanded, finding that the affidavit’s
description of miscellaneous expenses “falls short of the statutory demand for an itemized
description of the losses and their value.” Id. We reasoned that it was “impossible to
determine” how the district court arrived at the award amount. Id. But Keehn also held that
“we are not requiring receipts or proof of exact purchase price, but rather a list, as required
by statute, with reasonable specificity describing the items or elements of loss and the
dollar amount of those losses.” Id.
We agree with the state that the record evidence for the cost to repair the barn door
was sufficiently specific to support the restitution award. Unlike the generalized statements
in the affidavit in Keehn, C.S.’s testimony estimated the cost to repair her own property—
the door was solid wood, but it was ripped off the barn during the burglary, which destroyed
the track and wheels; she needed to replace parts and hire someone to reinstall the door.
Longstanding caselaw recognizes that an owner of personal property may testify about the
market value of her own property. Vreeman v. Davis, 348 N.W.2d 756, 757 (Minn. 1984).
Testimony of property value “by the owner is competent . . . This rule usually prevails even
though the owner lays no particular foundation for his opinion.” Hous. & Redev. Auth. v.
Zweigbaum, 100 N.W.2d 719, 721 (Minn. 1960) (citation omitted). While this caselaw
addresses civil claims for property loss and not restitution awards, we find it persuasive.
15
Despite the lack of receipts or professional estimates for the barn-door repairs, this
record is reasonably specific and supports the district court’s award of $500 for the barn
door. Thus, we affirm the restitution award for damage to the barn door.
B. The record does not provide a sufficient factual basis for the restitution
award for damage to C.S.’s pickup truck.
C.S. testified that her pickup truck had a trade-in value of $1,614, relying on internet
research from Kelley Blue Book, which she offered as an exhibit.5 C.S. also testified that,
before the burglary, she used the pickup truck for property maintenance, but it was not
operable after the burglary because Johnson removed engine parts during the burglary .
Johnson also removed the radio from C.S.’s pickup truck. In its written order, the district
court awarded $500 for the loss of C.S.’s pickup truck, with a short explanation.
This Court shall award $500 for the cost of the radio and engine
parts stolen, to account for the diminished value to the vehicle.
As [C.S.] still possesses the vehicle, it holds salvage value. The
$500 award can also be used to restore the vehicle back to the
condition it was in prior to the theft, if [C.S.] so chooses that
route.

Johnson argues that it is “impossible to determine how the postconviction court
came to the $500 figure for the truck when it appears the court based that figure on nebulous
reasons not in the record, such as ‘salvage value.’” Johnson is correct that the district court
did not explain how it arrived at $500 and only stated that the award accounts “for the
diminished value to the vehicle.” On appeal, the state asserts that the “cost to tow the

5 At the restitution hearing, Johnson objected to C.S.’s reliance on Kelley Blue Book as
hearsay, but the district court overruled the objection. Johnson did not raise the issue in the
brief filed with this court.
16
now-inoperable vehicle, coupled with parts and labor to repair the vehicle to its original
condition, would cost at least $500, if not more.” The state, however, cites no record
evidence to support its assertion and we can find none.
In Thole, this court considered a similar issue. The district court convicted appellant
of using a motor vehicle without consent and the state pursued the victim’s claim for
restitution for the car, which the victim repaired and traded in. 614 N.W.2d at 233. The
victim testified to a loss of $2,500, which she based on the car’s trade-in value before
appellant took it. Id. at 234. On appeal, this court determined that the record evidence
proved that the car “was in sound mechanical condition before the theft; that it was barely
operable after its recovery; and that its trade-in value was roughly equivalent to the amount
the victim spent t o return the car to a working condition.” Id. at 236. This court affirmed
the restitution award for the trade-in value of the victim’s car. Id.
We see a critical difference between this record and the record in Thole. In Thole,
evidence connected the cost of the car’s repair to its trade-in value. Here, the trade-in value
of C.S.’s pickup truck is $1,614, but no record evidence establishes its diminished value,
the cost to repair C.S.’s pickup truck, or the value of the missing items . While the district
court found that the $500 award could be “used to restore the vehicle back to the condition
it was in prior to the theft,” this is without record evidence and appears to depend on
conjecture.
But because the state provided some evidence of the pickup’s value, and established
that Johnson damaged the pickup during the burglary and made it inoperable, we reverse
in part the restitution award and remand for reconsideration of the award for C.S.’s pickup
17
truck. The district court may reopen the record for additional evidence in its discretion.
See, e.g., State v. Fader, 358 N.W.2d 42, 48 (Minn. 1984) (remanding for reconsideration
of restitution award to allow parties to present evidence on the amount of loss to the victim);
Keehn, 554 N.W.2d at 409 (reversing and remanding restitution order for further findings
“on the nature and amounts of expenses”). Thus, we reverse the restitution award for the
damage to C.S.’s pickup truck and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.