Cited by

(analyzing meaning of “claim of right” in trespass statute); WL 468640, at *3 (Minn. App. Mar.

where we considered a trespassing statute, Minn. Stat. § 609.605(5) (1982), which provided “[w]hoever intentionally does any of the following is guilty of a misdemeanor .

at 396-97 (quoting State v. Brechon , (quotation omitted)).

By contrast, Hall relies on a line of precedent beginning with State v. Brechon , in which we viewed the "without" clause of the statute as either an element or an affirmative defense.

State v. Brechon , , 750 (Minn. 1984).

State v. Brechon , d 745, 750 (Minn. 1984).

State v. Brechon , , 749 (Minn. 1984) (quotation omitted).

218 (Minn. 1986) ; then citing State v. Brechon , , 750 (Minn. 1984) ).

see also In re Welfare of M.P.Y., 5 (“[T]he Fourteenth Amendment protects a defendant’s right to testify in his own defense.”).

at 306–07, d at 398; see also State v. Brechon , (noting that “[c] ourts have held that the presence of the accused at the scene of the crime is an essential element of an offense” and that defendant therefore need not prove an alibi beyond a reasonable doubt).

o return, if the actor is without claim of right to the property or consent of one with authority to consent.” “‘[W]ithout claim of right’ is an element the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt” by offering evidence “from which it is reasonable to infer that the defendant has no legal claim of right to be on the premises where the trespass is alleged to have occurred.”

(“[I]n a criminal trespass case the state must present evidence from which it is reasonable to infer that the defendant has no legal claim of right to be on the premises where the trespass is alleged to have occurred.”).

Evidence of the absence of claim of right is “evidence from which it is reasonable to infer that the defendant has no legal claim of right to be on the premises where the trespass is alleged to have occurred.”

See, (“We deem it fundamental that criminal defendants have a due process right to 6 explain their conduct to a jury.”).

“The test for determining what constitutes a basic element of rather than an exception to a statute has been stated as whether the exception is so incorporated with the 10 clause defining the offense that it becomes in fact a part of the description.” (quotation omitted).

A criminal defendant has a fundamental due-process right to explain her conduct to a jury, (), “even if the explanation is not a perfect defense,”

-51 (Minn.1984) (explaining that the right to present a defense encompasses the defendant’s right to explain her conduct to the jury).

bears the burden of persuasion on a defense only if, first, the conduct prohibited by the criminal offense, “ ‘in itself, without the exception is ordinarily dangerous to society or involves moral turpitude’ ” and, second, “ ‘requiring the state to prove the acts would place an impossible burden on the prosecution.’” ().

N.W.2d 673, 678-79 (Minn.2002) (interpreting the phrase “without lawful excuse” in the nonsupport of a child statute as an element of the offense and observing that “[b]y embedding the phrase ‘without lawful excuse’ in the definition of the offense, the legislature demonstrated its intent to include the absence of a lawful excuse as one of the facts necessary for a conviction”); (holding that a claim of right in a criminal trespass case is not a defense but a basic element of the State’s case th

Our holding is grounded in constitutional law and our recognition that it is “fundamental that criminal defendants have a due process right to explain their conduct to a jury.” , *617 751 (Minn.1984); see also In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 273 , 68 S.Ct.

The Minnesota Supreme Court has considered “it fundamental that criminal defendants have a due process right to explain their conduct to a jury.”

(stating that defendant can be required to prove that a statutory exception to a criminal offense applies if the act itself is ordinarily dangerous to society or involves moral turpitude, and if requiring the state to prove that the exception does not apply would place an impossible burden on the pros