## Facts

- Jay M. Corbin and Ronald R. Niebuhr, along with other members of their hunting party, asked Wayne and Ed Soost for permission to hunt on the Soost farms.
- The Soosts allowed the hunting party to hunt on their land but told the hunters they could hunt in the woods and could not go through the standing corn.
- On November 7, 1982, the hunters asked permission to enter the cornfield to retrieve a wounded deer, and Ed Soost refused to allow retrieval until the corn was picked.
- The Soosts did not post “no trespassing” signs on any part of the property; the restrictions were communicated verbally.
- Ed Soost later went to the field and discovered that Corbin and Niebuhr had entered the cornfield to retrieve the deer despite the verbal refusal.
- The sheriff was contacted, and the State charged Corbin and Niebuhr with misdemeanor trespass under Minn. Stat. § 100.273, subd. 3 (1982).
- At a pretrial conference, the district court issued an order stating it would instruct the jury that Minn. Stat. § 100.273, subd. 7 (1982) (wounded-game retrieval on unposted agricultural land) provided a defense to the trespass charge.
- The State took an interlocutory appeal from that pretrial order.

## Issues

1. Does a hunter commit trespass under Minn. Stat. § 100.273, subd. 3 by entering unposted agricultural land to retrieve a wounded deer after the landowner has orally told the hunter not to enter?

## Decision

- The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s pretrial order.
- The court held that Minn. Stat. § 100.273, subd. 7 allows a hunter to enter unposted agricultural land to retrieve a wounded animal without the landowner’s permission.
- Because subdivision 7 expressly authorizes retrieval “without permission” on unposted agricultural land, an owner’s oral refusal does not eliminate the statutory defense in that setting.
- The trial court therefore did not err by announcing it would instruct the jury that subdivision 7 provided a defense to the misdemeanor trespass charge.

## Legal Principles

- When statutory provisions address the same subject, a later-enacted, specific authorization (retrieval of wounded game from unposted agricultural land without permission) operates as an exception to a more general prohibition (entry after notice in hunting-related trespass).
- A statute carrying misdemeanor penalties is construed strictly; when a statute reasonably supports more than one reading, courts adopt the interpretation that favors the defendant.
- Under Minn. Stat. § 100.273 (1982), posting is the controlling mechanism for restricting entry onto agricultural land for wounded-game retrieval purposes; if the land is unposted and the entry is for retrieval of wounded game, subdivision 7 supplies a defense to a subdivision 3 prosecution.
- A court may instruct the jury on a statutory defense when the charged conduct fits within the defense’s stated conditions.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed the pretrial order because Minn. Stat. § 100.273, subd. 7 grants hunters a limited right to enter unposted agricultural land to retrieve wounded game without the owner’s permission, and that authorization functions as a defense to misdemeanor trespass under subdivision 3 even when the landowner has orally told the hunters not to enter.


State v. Corbin, 343 N.W.2d 874 (1984)