## Facts

- A resident of a skilled nursing facility was severely brain-damaged and under guardianship.
- Jane Douglass Hoyt, unrelated to the resident, visited nearly daily for about 22 months, worked with the resident, and repeatedly complained to staff and regulators about the resident’s care.
- The resident’s parents were appointed guardians; they knew of Hoyt’s visits and did not object, and there was evidence they encouraged her continued involvement.
- The facility administrator later sent Hoyt a letter revoking her “visiting privileges,” citing the facility’s need for a tranquil environment and staff morale.
- Hoyt continued to enter the facility to visit the resident; police removed her at the administrator’s request.
- Hoyt was charged and convicted of criminal trespass for remaining on the premises “without claim of right” after being told to leave.
- Before trial, the court largely excluded Hoyt’s proffered testimony and witnesses offered to show a “claim of right” based on consent from the resident or her guardians; the case was submitted on stipulated facts plus limited testimony.

## Issues

1. Whether Hoyt had a bona fide “claim of right” (license) to enter the nursing facility based on express or implied consent of the resident or her guardians, defeating criminal trespass under Minn. Stat. § 609.605(5).
2. Whether the trial court’s exclusion of most defense evidence on claim of right improperly prevented consideration of the defense.
3. Whether federal and state patient-rights provisions independently authorized a third-party advocate to enter the facility, and whether constitutional claims needed to be reached.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the trespass conviction.
- The court held that evidence of guardian knowledge, lack of objection, and encouragement was sufficient to create a fact question whether Hoyt had a license to enter and thus a bona fide claim of right.
- The court held that the cited federal and state patient-rights provisions vested enforcement authority in the patient/resident or guardian, not in third parties such as Hoyt.
- The court declined to decide the asserted First Amendment claim because the case was resolved on nonconstitutional grounds.
- The court concluded that excluding most of Hoyt’s proffered evidence was erroneous given its central relevance to the claim-of-right defense.

## Legal Principles

- Criminal trespass under Minn. Stat. § 609.605(5) requires proof that the defendant was on the premises “without claim of right.”
- A license to be on property, granted expressly or impliedly by a person with authority, constitutes a “claim of right” and is a defense to criminal trespass.
- A person visiting a nursing home resident with the express or implied consent of the resident or the resident’s guardian is a licensee with a claim of right, including a right to use reasonable means of ingress and egress necessary for visitation.
- Federal and state patient-rights provisions at issue grant enforcement authority to patients/residents and guardians, not to unrelated third parties.
- Courts avoid constitutional rulings when statutory and evidentiary grounds resolve the dispute.

## Conclusion

Because Hoyt offered substantial evidence that the resident’s guardians impliedly consented to her visits, she established a bona fide claim-of-right defense that should have been considered by the factfinder; the exclusion of that evidence required reversal, and patient-rights provisions did not independently authorize third-party access.


State v. Hoyt, 304 N.W.2d 884 (Minn. 1981)