## Facts

- Anti-nuclear protestors, including John Brechon and Scott Carpenter, were arrested at Honeywell’s corporate headquarters in Minneapolis and charged with criminal trespass for remaining on property after being told to leave.
- Before trial, the prosecution moved in limine to restrict evidence of necessity/justification and to preclude a “claim of right” defense.
- The municipal court ruled that “without claim of right” is part of the offense the State must disprove beyond a reasonable doubt, allowed limited testimony about defendants’ moral/political/religious reasons, and did not definitively rule on necessity.
- The court of appeals reversed in part, treating “without claim of right” as an affirmative defense, finding motive/belief testimony irrelevant, and broadly restricting defenses through pretrial offer-of-proof requirements.
- The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the pretrial rulings; no trial record existed.

## Issues

1. Whether “without claim of right” in Minnesota’s criminal trespass statute is an element the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt or an affirmative defense.
2. Whether the sufficiency of evidence supporting “claim of right” is for the judge to screen pretrial or for the jury to decide at trial.
3. Whether the prosecution may use a broad pretrial motion in limine to restrict anticipated defense evidence on motives and beliefs before the State presents its case.
4. Whether necessity/justification defenses may be categorically barred in limine absent a trial record.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, reinstated the municipal court’s rulings, and remanded for further proceedings.
- “Without claim of right” was held to be an element of criminal trespass that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Defendants may introduce evidence supporting a reasonable belief in a right, license, or invitation to be on the property; once raised, the jury decides the issue’s sufficiency.
- Broad, anticipatory motions in limine aimed at limiting defense evidence before trial were disapproved as inconsistent with the State’s burden of proof and defendants’ rights.
- The municipal court’s limited allowance of testimony about defendants’ moral, political, or religious reasons—while restricting extensive detail—was upheld.

## Legal Principles

- When statutory language defining an offense includes “without claim of right,” the absence of claim of right is an element the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
- A defendant bears only a burden of production to introduce some evidence of a reasonable belief in a right or license to enter or remain; the prosecution retains the burden of persuasion on the element.
- Once evidence of claim of right is introduced, the fact-finder (jury) determines whether the element is satisfied; the court should not remove the issue through categorical pretrial exclusion.
- In criminal cases, broad prosecution motions in limine that preemptively restrict defense evidence before the State presents its proof are disfavored; defendants generally are not required to commit in advance to their evidence.
- Evidence of motives and beliefs may be admitted to the extent relevant (including to state of mind) and may be limited under ordinary relevance and prejudice rules; it should not be excluded wholesale as irrelevant.

## Conclusion

The court held that “without claim of right” is an element of criminal trespass, preserved the jury’s role once claim-of-right evidence is introduced, and limited the prosecution’s ability to use broad pretrial motions to restrict anticipated defense evidence, remanding for trial consistent with these rules.


State v. Brechon, 352 N.W.2d 745 (Minn. 1984)