MN Supreme Court uses grammar lesson for final word

[Fish Felon]

Minnesota Supreme Court uses grammar lesson for final word in hunting case

By DAVID CHANEN , STAR TRIBUNE
February 25, 2015 - 11:11 PM


State Supreme Court affirms decisions against Avon man who fought license citation.

The Minnesota Supreme Court employed an extended grammar discussion Wednesday in ruling on when a person is hunting and requires a license.

The justices’ decision ended a three-year fight in ruling against Roger B. Schmid, 82, of Avon, Minn., who had received a misdemeanor citation for hunting without a license.

Early on a Sunday in November 2011, a game warden found Schmid wearing blaze orange and sitting on his ATV in a camouflaged blind with a loaded 12-gauge, scoped shotgun at his side. He told the warden that he had shot a deer the night before. The officer saw no deer nearby, but did see a gut pile in the area.


The officer noted that Schmid’s deer-hunting license lacked a bonus permit to shoot a second deer even though he appeared ready to hunt again, and told him he would cite him for hunting without a license. Schmid gave the officer several explanations of why he wasn’t actually hunting for a second day. He said he was just part of a hunting team, out “nature watching” and coyote hunting.

After losing his temper with the officer, Schmid was issued a citation for hunting deer without a valid license under a state law that says a person may not “take” a deer without a license.

At Schmid’s trial in Stearns County District Court, jurors were told that they needed to determine whether he was “taking” or just “pursuing” a deer as defined in another part of the state’s game and fish laws. The jury convicted Schmid, and he lost his appeal at the state Court of Appeals.

The state Supreme Court justices’ 18-page ruling laid out legal and grammatical reasons for affirming the lower courts’ decisions.

“This decision is just common sense,” said Stearns County Attorney Janelle Kendall. “It’s a win for people who follow the rules.”

During his trial, Schmid testified that he was waiting to transport a tagged carcass when the officer arrived — something the officer said in court that Schmid had not said in the field. Schmid said he was dressed in orange with his gun in a blind to stay warm and for safety reasons and argued that he hadn’t violated state law because he hadn’t actually “acquired possession” of a deer on the day the officer cited him.

In its review, the state high court looked at whether the law Schmid violated was ambiguous. It also discussed whether in the rules of grammar, “take” and “taking” share the same underlying definition when used in hunting descriptions. The justices even looked at whether different tenses of words in a statute can have different meanings.

The ruling, written by Justice David Lillehaug, drops words like “gerund,” “syntactical” and “participle.” Ultimately, he wrote, both the rules of grammar and long-standing state case law precedent make it only reasonable that the word “take” incorporates the definition of “taking” in game and fish laws. The Wisconsin Supreme Court also has made a similar ruling, Lillehaug noted.

Attorneys Daniel White and John Neal handled Schmid’s case before the Supreme Court. White asked whether the prosecution should have had to prove that Schmid intended to hunt deer rather than being afield doing something else, such as hunting coyote or simply being out for a walk.

“The uncertainty as to whether the State could properly charge someone without proving specific intent here made this case one of statewide importance,” White said Wednesday. “We are glad that the Supreme Court resolved this uncertainty. We now know that if Minnesotans think that the State should need to prove an actual, specific intent for charges under Minnesota’s fish and game laws, the law would need to be changed ... by Minnesota’s legislators.”

Ken Soring, the Department of Natural Resources’ chief enforcement officer, called the high court’s ruling reasonable, saying it upholds a commonly used law. The agency hasn’t changed its enforcement of the law in question since Schmid lost his Court of Appeals challenge in 2013, Soring said. If the Supreme Court had reversed the lower courts’ ruling, the DNR would have had to ask Legislature to change the language in the statute, he said.

“Aside from a bit of English and grammar lessons, the ruling just boils down to the best interest of citizens to have a common-sense application of law,” Soring said.

David Chanen • 612-673-4465

[Trigger]

So if I shoot a deer, I'm no longer allowed to hunt in the woods for the year?

[shnelson]

Dude's 82 years old, CO should have inquired about how the squirrel hunting was rather than cause a guy grief in some of the last years he's able to hunt.

Much of this probably stems off him losing his temper though. I've learned to offer not much more than a Yessir/Nosir and things don't tend to escalate as much

[Bullet21XD]

So if I shoot a deer, I'm no longer allowed to hunt in the woods for the year?

As long as you don't wear blaze orange.

Pretty sad this guy was actually convicted. Outdoorsmen lost on this issue.

[Trigger]

So if I shoot a deer, I'm no longer allowed to hunt in the woods for the year?

As long as you don't wear blaze orange.

Pretty sad this guy was actually convicted. Outdoorsmen lost on this issue.

I don't own any.

And I agree. This is bs.

[Nershi]

I don't see how is any different than catching a limit of walleyes and continuing to fish for crappies, perch etc. As long as you don't say "I'm fishing for walleyes" or in this guys case "trying to shoot another deer" when the CO asks you are 100% legal. I'm surprised he got convicted.

[Hamster]

Dude's 82 years old, CO should have inquired about how the squirrel hunting was rather than cause a guy grief in some of the last years he's able to hunt.

Much of this probably stems off him losing his temper though. I've learned to offer not much more than a Yessir/Nosir and things don't tend to escalate as much

Agreed cops being pigs and wondering why so many people hate them vs. respect them.

[Goldfish]

If you use your deer tag, are you still allowed to party hunt? You still have a deer license, just not a tag.

[lanyard]

If you use your deer tag, are you still allowed to party hunt? You still have a deer license, just not a tag.

Well, now you have to meet the definition of a party. Which didn't sound like he had one, or I think that would have been a key point to the defense.....

I agree with Nershi re: so he shot a deer, now he was hanging out to shoot a coyote. He did not violate the blaze orange requirements, minimum shot size requirements, nor any other "fact" it would seem.

Could be crap reporting though, also.

There's an outlet on Peltier or of those lakes up around Lindstrom, that has stays open. You can catch small perch in there early ice out. Some guy was fishing for perch with a daredevil. When the CO checked us, I asked WTF? He said, "I can't ticket someone for being a bad fisherman....." I thought that was a brilliant answer.

The fact this case went to court in the first place, then to the State Supreme Court, seems like there were some old axes that were in need of being ground down and this wasn't the first time CO and Old Dude have met.

[Stute Slap]

I wonder if LEO's realize that the general public thinks they are pieces of crap?