author: HUDSON, Judge.

text:
    STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Ariel Suzette PEDERSEN, Appellant.
    No. A03-249.
    Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
    May 18, 2004.

      Mike Hatch, Attorney General, St. Paul, MN, and Katherine M. Johnson, Chisago County Attorney, Daniel R. Vlieger, Assistant County Attorney, Center City, MN, for respondent.
    Randall D.B. Tigue, Randall Tigue Law Office, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for appellant.
    Considered and decided by STONEBURNER, Presiding Judge; HUDSON, Judge; and CRIPPEN, Judge.

       Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const, art. VI, § 10.

   OPINION

HUDSON, Judge.

On October 6, 2000, a Chisago County sheriff stopped appellant, Ariel Suzette Pederson, for speeding. When the sheriff approached her car, he detected an odor of marijuana and a subsequent search of the car yielded 529.3 grams of marijuana. Chisago County charged appellant with felony possession of a controlled substance crime in the fifth degree, and possession of marijuana in a motor vehicle. Appellant moved to dismiss the criminal complaint, arguing, among other things, that the laws prohibiting the possession of marijuana as applied to her are unconstitutional because they violate her rights under the Freedom of Conscience Clause of the Minnesota Constitution. The district court denied her motion, concluding that appellant’s beliefs about marijuana use are personal beliefs as opposed to communal religious beliefs. Following a bench trial, appellant was convicted of felony controlled substance crime in the fifth degree. The trial court sentenced appellant to an indeterminate period of probation not to exceed five years on the condition that she refrain from the use or possession of marijuana. On appeal, appellant argues that the district court erred by denying her motion to dismiss. Because we conclude that appellant’s beliefs about marijuana use are personal beliefs rather than communal religious practices or tenets, we affirm.

FACTS

The parties do not dispute the underlying facts of this case. On October 6, 2000, Chisago County Sheriff Deputy Doug Hen-ning stopped appellant, Ariel Suzette Ped-ersen, for speeding. When Henning approached appellant’s vehicle he detected an odor of marijuana coming from the vehicle. He asked appellant if she had any marijuana and she admitted “yes, a little.” During a search of the vehicle the sheriff discovered 529.3 grams of marijuana. Chisago County charged appellant with felony possession of a controlled substance crime in the fifth degree under Minn.Stat. § 152.025, subd. 2(1) (2000), and possession of marijuana in a motor vehicle under Minn.Stat. § 152.027, subd. 3 (2000).

On September 12, 2001, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the criminal complaint contending that the criminal statutes under which the county was prosecuting her were unconstitutional as applied to her because they violated the Freedom of Conscience Clause of the Minnesota Constitution, article I, section 16. Additionally, appellant argued that any penalty that deprived her of marijuana would constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and article I, section 5, of the Minnesota Constitution.

At the omnibus hearing on appellant’s motion, Dr. John Paul Morgan, a physician who examined appellant’s medical records, testified that appellant suffers from a mixed connective tissue disorder called Raynaud’s Phenomena. The condition causes swelling and pain in the hands and fingers. Dr. Morgan testified that appellant suffers nausea, gastric upsets, depression of her appetite, and occasional muscle spasms because of her use of prescribed opioid compounds and perhaps the underlying illness. Appellant has been treated with a variety of anti-inflammatory drugs and orally active opioid compounds. Nevertheless, appellant testified that she is usually so nauseated that she vomits seven to eight times a day and that on a good day she will only vomit once or twice. Appellant testified that she smokes two to three marijuana cigarettes a day, and that the marijuana stops the nausea and gives her an appetite. She testified that the marijuana also stops her muscle spasms.

Dr. Morgan likewise testified that appellant’s use of marijuana helped achieve pain relief and helped with the “dyspeptic upper GI symptoms; her loss of appetite and her loss of weight.” Dr. Morgan testified that marijuana is the best remedy for appellant. He also testified that there are other remedies, including Marinol, an FDA-approved drug that is accepted by the American Medical Association and is prescribed for the relief of nausea. Mari-nol contains THC, which is the active ingredient in marijuana. But Dr. Morgan acknowledged that Marinol is not as effective as marijuana because Marinol, which is taken orally, is rapidly degraded by the liver and little of the THC reaches the blood stream. Appellant testified that Marinol helps with spasms and increases her appetite, but she stated that she throws up her Marinol because of the nausea.

With respect to her religious beliefs, appellant testified that she graduated in 1997 from the Ministry Training Institute in Los Angeles, California, and described herself as “a teacher essentially of ministry studies.” Appellant testified that her medicinal use of marijuana is consistent with her religious belief as a Messianic Jew; appellant cited various biblical passages to support this contention. Appellant stated that the book of Genesis instructs that “God gives us every plant bearing seeds inside itself for our consumption and for our health.” Genesis 1:11-12, 29; 9:3. Appellant stated that Messianic Jews have been using cannabis since the beginning of time for incense and oils and medicinal purposes. Appellant testified that in the book of Exodus the Bible authorizes the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes. According to appellant, “God was explaining to Moses all the ingredients to put into the incense for the temple. Within this confinement of the five ingredients was sweet cane. Sweet cane is cannabis in Hebrew, meaning scented reed or sweet smelling reed.”

Reverend Karl Dean Buchanan also testified on appellant’s behalf. Reverend Buchanan has been ordained into the Baptist Missionary Ministry. He is also a teacher at the church of MidVar Metzarim and has taken approximately 16 credit hours of Essenic studies, which is the study of the Jewish sect responsible for the Dead Sea Scrolls. Reverend Buchanan testified that the medicinal use of marijuana is consistent with the teachings of Essenic Judaism and Messianic Judaism.

The district court denied appellant’s motion to dismiss, finding that the use of marijuana was not truly connected with her religious beliefs; rather it was a personal preference. The ease was tried to the court on stipulated facts, pursuant to State v. Lothenbach, 296 N.W.2d 854 (Minn.1980), and appellant was convicted of felony controlled substance crime in the fifth degree. The trial court sentenced appellant to an indeterminate period of probation not to exceed five years on the condition that she refrain from the use or possession of marijuana. This appeal follows.

ISSUES

I. Did the district court err in finding that the controlled substance laws prohibiting appellant from possessing and using marijuana do not violate the Freedom of Conscience Clause of the Minnesota Constitution, article I, section 16?

II. Did the district court err by concluding that denying appellant access to marijuana as a criminal penalty does not constitute cruel or unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and article I, section 5, of the Minnesota Constitution?

ANALYSIS

I

Appellant argues that the controlled substance laws prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana violate her rights under article I, section 16, of the Freedom of Conscience Clause of the Minnesota Constitution.

In reviewing constitutional challenges, the interpretation of statutes is a question of law. State v. Manning, 532 N.W.2d 244, 247 (Minn.App.1995), review denied (Minn. July 20, 1995). The constitutionality of a statute presents a question of law that the court reviews de novo. State v. Wright, 588 N.W.2d 166, 168 (Minn.App.1998), revieio denied (Minn. Feb. 24, 1999).

Article I, section 16, provides “[t]he right of every man to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience shall never be infringed ... nor shall any control of or interference with the rights of conscience be permitted.” Minn. Const., art. I, § 16. “To excuse an imposition on religious freedom under the Minnesota Constitution, the government’s interest must be one of peace or safety or an interest against an act of licentiousness.” Murphy v. Murphy, 574 N.W.2d 77, 81 (Minn.App.1998). “Only religious practices that are licentious or inconsistent with peace or safety are denied an exemption.” Id. (citing State by Cooper v. French, 460 N.W.2d 2, 9 (Minn.1990)).

In Employment Div., Dep’t of Human Res. of Oregon v. Smith, the United States Supreme Court held that a law of general application, which does not intend to regulate religious beliefs or conduct, is not invalid notwithstanding the incidental impact it has on an individual’s religious beliefs. 494 U.S. 872, 876-82,110 S.Ct. 1595, 1599-1602, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990). The court observed: “[cjonscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs....” Id. at 879, 110 S.Ct. at 1600 (quoting Minersville Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594-95, 60 S.Ct. 1010, 1012-13, 84 L.Ed. 1375 (1940)). Thus, the court in Smith rejected the compelling-state-interest test adopted in Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972), and held, unequivocally, that neutral laws of general applicability are not subject to free-exercise challenges. Smith, 494 U.S. at 884-90, 110 S.Ct. at 1603-06.

But the Minnesota Supreme Court has interpreted the Freedom of Conscience Clause to afford greater protection than the Free Exercise Clause of the United States Constitution. See State v. Hershberger, 462 N.W.2d 393, 397-98 (Minn.1990). Thus, in Hershberger, the court explained that the language in the Minnesota Constitution “is of a distinctively stronger character than the federal counterpart.” Id. at 397. Accordingly, the court instructed that in order to determine whether an individual’s rights under the Freedom of Conscience Clause are violated, the compelling-state-interest test articulates the standard to apply. Id. at 398. Therefore, “once a claimant has demonstrated a sincere religious belief intended to be protected by section 16, the state should be required to demonstrate that public safety cannot be achieved by proposed alternative means.” Id.

Accordingly, under Hershberger, we must first determine whether appellant’s medicinal use of marijuana is a sincerely held religious belief intended to be protected by section 16. Appellant argues that the medicinal use of marijuana is consistent with her sincerely held religious beliefs as a Messianic Jew. The district court, however, concluded that appellant’s beliefs in connection with the use of marijuana are personal beliefs, based on a personal, rather than communal, interpretation of religious significance. We agree.

Whether the medicinal use of marijuana is a sincerely held religious belief entitled to protection under the Freedom of Conscience Clause appears to be an issue of first impression for this court. Many courts before us, however, have attempted to take on the task of defining what constitutes a sincerely held religious belief. Almost uniformly these courts have acknowledged that establishing such a definition is a delicate and difficult task. See, e.g., Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 1533, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972) (“a determination of what is a ‘religious’ belief or practice entitled to constitutional protection may present a most delicate question”); Wiggins v. Sargent, 753 F.2d 663, 666 (8th Cir.1985) (noting a court must take a cautious approach to make the extremely delicate determination of whether a purported belief is religious); Africa v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 662 F.2d 1025, 1031 (3d Cir.1981) (“when an individual invokes the first amendment to shield himself or herself from otherwise legitimate state regulation, we are required to make such uneasy differentiations”); Stevens v. Berger, 428 F.Supp. 896, 899 (E.D.N.Y.1977) (noting that determining what is a religious belief is a “difficult and sensitive factfinding task”).

When making this difficult determination, however, there are some overarching principles that guide us. In United States v. Ballard, the United States Supreme Court declared that courts may not consider whether the party’s purportedly religious beliefs are true or false. 322 U.S. 78, 86-88, 64 S.Ct. 882, 886-87, 88 L.Ed. 1148 (1944). The court in Ballard added that “[t]he First Amendment does not select any one group or any one type of religion for preferred treatment. It puts them all in that position.” Id. at 87, 64 S.Ct. at 887. In Yoder, the United States Supreme Court explained:

Although a determination of what is a “religious” belief or practice entitled to constitutional protection may present a most delicate question, the very concept of ordered liberty precludes allowing every person to make his own standards on matters of conduct in which society as a whole has important interests. Thus, if the Amish asserted their claims because of their subjective evaluation and rejection of the contemporary secular values accepted by the majority, much as Thoreau rejected the social values of his time and isolated himself ..., their claims would not rest on a religious basis. Thoreau’s choice was philosophical and personal rather than religious, and such belief does not rise to the demands of the Religion Clauses.

406 U.S. at 215-16, 92 S.Ct. at 1533 (footnote omitted).

Furthermore, in Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec., 450 U.S. 707, 714, 101 S.Ct. 1425, 1430, 67 L.Ed.2d 624 (1981), the United States Supreme Court held that “religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection.” And if there is any doubt about whether a particular set of beliefs constitutes a religion, the court will err on the side of freedom and find that the beliefs are a religion. United States v. Meyers, 906 F.Supp. 1494, 1499 (D.Wyo.1995).

Also instructive, and factually similar, is State v. Brashear, 92 N.M. 622, 593 P.2d 63 (Ct.App.1979). In Brashear, the defendant argued that he used the Bible as his guide and concluded that God gave man every herb-bearing seed, including marijuana, and depriving him of marijuana would deprive him of a blessing coming from God. Brashear, 593 P.2d at 66. The court held that appellant’s conduct of smoking marijuana was not based on his sincerely held religious belief; rather his belief in the use and distribution of marijuana was based on his personal interpretation of the Bible. Id. at 68. The court engaged in a thorough analysis of what constitutes a religious belief and acknowledged that definitions of religious practice and conduct are difficult. Id. But the court determined that defendant’s belief as to the use and distribution of marijuana was not a sincerely held religious belief because

[tjhere [was] no evidence that defendant’s belief was espoused by any organization or was a principle, tenet, or dogma of any organization of which he was a member. There [was] no evidence that defendant’s belief encompasses marijuana as an object of worship or that the use and distribution of marijuana except in limited ways would be sacrilegious. There [was] no evidence that defendant uses marijuana to communicate with any Supreme Being; no evidence that defendant’s use or distribution in any way involves any religious ceremony; no evidence that the use or distribution involves any principle, tenet, or dogma pertaining to the spiritual or eternal, and, thus, nonsecular.

Id.; see also People v. Mitchell, 244 Cal.App.2d 176, 52 Cal.Rptr. 884, 888 (1966) (stating that “defendant has offered no evidence that his use of marijuana is a religious practice in any sense of that term. In defendant’s discourse to the jury he did refer to the Bible and to the practices of some Hindus, but in essence he was expressing only his own personal philosophy and way of life”).

Further, in Meyers, the court rejected the defendant’s claim that his belief in “The Church of Marijuana” was a bona fide religion for purposes of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993. Meyers, 906 F.Supp. at 1502-09. In so doing, the court conducted a comprehensive survey of cases that have addressed what constitutes a religious belief. Id. Evaluating the plaintiffs contention that he possessed a sincere religious belief in smoking marijuana, the court reviewed, among others, the following factors: (1) Ultimate Ideas — whether the beliefs in question address fundamental questions about life, purpose, and death; (2) Metaphysical Beliefs — whether the beliefs in question address a reality which transcends the physical and immediately apparent world; (3) Moral or Ethical System — whether the beliefs in question prescribe certain acts in normative terms, such a “right” and “wrong”; (4) Comprehensiveness of Beliefs — whether the beliefs in question provide the believer with answers to many problems that confront humans; and (5) Accoutrements of Religion — whether the beliefs in question are accompanied by other established components of religion, such as important writings (e.g., creeds, tenets, precepts); gathering places (e.g., temples, churches, synagogues); or ceremonies and rituals. Id. at 1502-03. After reviewing these criteria, the court concluded that Meyer’s beliefs were more aptly characterized as medical, therapeutic, and social, and were secular in nature. Id. at 1505-09.

Here, to support her contention that the medicinal use of marijuana is consistent with her sincerely held religious belief, appellant cites Bible verses, similar to the verses discussed in Brashear. She states that the book of Genesis instructs that “God gives us every plant bearing seeds inside itself for our consumption and for our health.” Additionally, she explains that Messianic Jews have been using cannabis since the beginning of time for incense and oils and medicinal purposes. Appellant testified that in the book of Exodus the Bible authorizes the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes, testifying that: “God was explaining to Moses all the ingredients to put into the incense for the temple. Within this confinement of the five ingredients was sweet cane. Sweet cane is cannabis in Hebrew, meaning scented reed or sweet smelling reed.” Further, appellant’s expert testified that the medicinal use of marijuana is consistent with the teachings of Essenic Judaism and Messianic Judaism. He stated that the use of marijuana is entirely kosher within Jewish law, meaning there is no argument against using marijuana for medicinal purposes. Additionally, he testified that the Bible passages cited by appellant do state that cannabis was used as an oil and was a highly esteemed trade.

But appellant’s testimony in support of her purported religious belief did not address three of the Meyers criteria — ultimate ideas, metaphysical beliefs, and comprehensiveness of beliefs; and only generally addressed the moral or ethical dimension of her belief and its purported scriptural foundation. And, as in Brash-ear and Mitchell, appellant failed to provide the court with any evidence that her medicinal use of marijuana involves a religious ceremony, a principle, tenet, or dogma pertaining to the spiritual or eternal, or that she uses marijuana to communicate with any supreme being. Moreover, even if we accept appellant’s assertion that in the book of Exodus sweet cane refers to cannabis, this is the sole Biblical text cited by appellant that makes any reference to the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. More importantly, other than citing this one verse, appellant fails to demonstrate how her medicinal use of marijuana is supported or advocated by Essenic or Messianic Judaism in the context of their fundamental tenets, precepts, scriptures or rites. Appellant’s isolated and anecdotal citations to scriptures generally extolling the virtues of plant life are insufficient to prove that her medicinal use of marijuana is a communal religious belief. Likewise, Reverend Buchanan’s general statement that the medicinal use of marijuana is consistent with the teachings of Essenic Judaism and Messianic Judaism is unsupported by any evidence in the record.

While we acknowledge that appellant is not required to prove that her use of marijuana meets all of the criteria set forth in Meyers, Brashear, and Mitchell, it is necessary that her use of marijuana be somehow tied to her religion and the established practices and beliefs within her religion. Here, appellant has failed to provide any evidence that establishes a connection between the practice of her religion and the medicinal use of marijuana. In our view, her belief in the medicinal use of marijuana is a personal, secular belief, driven more by her medical needs than any philosophical principle or religious tenet. As the Meyers court noted: “[tjhough the [marijuana] plant apparently has cured Meyers’ manic depression and keeps him calm, this therapeutic effect is not religious. The marijuana plant does not provide Meyers with the comprehensive inspiration or guidance that the godheads of other religions provide to their followers.” Meyers, 906 F.Supp. at 1506. The same is true for appellant here. In like fashion, the marijuana plant provides appellant with significant relief from her illness, but this therapeutic effect is not religious. Thus, we conclude that appellant’s medicinal use of marijuana is not a sincerely held religious belief.

Because we conclude that appellant did not have a sincerely held religious belief in the medicinal use of marijuana, we need not reach respondent’s argument that the government has a compelling public safety-interest sufficient to defeat appellant’s claim. We take this opportunity to note, however, that the state’s sole reliance on the legislature’s enactment of statutes prohibiting the possession of marijuana to defeat a claim under article I, section 16, is plainly inadequate under Hershberger. See 462 N.W.2d at 398. Although the state obviously has a compelling public safety interest in enforcing the controlled substance laws, the state failed to provide any evidence that its compelling interest in public safety could not be achieved by less restrictive means.

II

The trial court sentenced appellant to an indeterminate period of probation not to exceed five years on the condition that she refrain from the use or possession of marijuana. Appellant argues that this sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of article I, section 5, of the Minnesota Constitution and the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The Minnesota Constitution provides that no person may be subject to “cruel or unusual punishment.” Minn. Const, art. I, § 5; see also U.S. Const, amend. VIII (prohibiting “cruel and unusual punishment”); State v. Mitchell, 577 N.W.2d 481, 488 (Minn.1998) (recognizing the Minnesota Constitution provides a defendant with greater protection than the United States Constitution). To determine whether a sentence is unconstitutional, we consider whether the punishment is proportional to the crime. Mitchell, 577 N.W.2d at 489. But because statutes are presumed constitutional, the defendant bears the burden of showing that “ ‘our culture and laws emphatically and well nigh universally reject’ ” the sentence the defendant is claiming is cruel or unusual. State v. Chambers, 589 N.W.2d 466, 479-80 (Minn.1999) (quoting Harris v. Wright, 98 F.3d 581, 583 (9th Cir.1996)).

Here, the trial court could not (nor can this court) provide the relief appellant requests. We are not unsympathetic to appellant’s plight. But appellant urges this court to sanction her continued illegal use of marijuana; this we cannot do. Appellant’s cause is one more appropriately addressed to the Minnesota legislature.

Moreover, appellant’s sentence to probation is not disproportionate to her crime. The statute allows the court to sentence appellant to up to five years in prison; the court sentenced appellant to a standard probationary period. Minn.Stat. § 152.025, subd. 3(a). This sentence is presumed constitutional and appellant has not presented any evidence to prove that our laws and culture reject such a sentence for possession of a Schedule I drug.

Appellant argues that unless she is allowed to smoke marijuana, she will continue to suffer from nausea, her weight will continue to drop, and her life will be in jeopardy. But the facts do not support appellant’s claim. It is clear from the record that appellant’s disorders are not fatal, and that there are other remedies available to treat appellant’s condition — it is just that marijuana is the most effective remedy. Specifically, appellant has been prescribed Marinol, the FDA-approved prescription that contains the active ingredient in marijuana, namely THC. As respondent correctly notes, Marinol may not be as efficient or effective as smoked marijuana, but it is available and it is legal.

DECISION

We affirm the district court’s decision that appellant does not have a sincerely held religious belief in the medicinal use of marijuana, because appellant failed to articulate a connection between her use of marijuana and the practices or central tenets of her religion. Further, we affirm the district court’s sentence of probation on the condition that appellant refrain from using marijuana, because appellant’s sentence to a period of probation is not disproportionate to her crime.

Affirmed.

      . In general, scholars of the Hebrew Bible (known to Christians as the Old Testament) indicate that the Essenes shared marked similarities with the Pharisees, but were even stricter in their legalism. As a result, they withdrew from public life to form strict ascetic communities where they could practice the Law without compromise. It is believed that between 150 B.C. and 70 A.D. they wrote and/or collected the Dead Sea Scrolls — a wealth of biblical and nonbiblical documents critical to the history of the development of the text of the Hebrew Bible. Norman K. Gottwald, The Hebrew Bible, A Socio-Literary Intt'oduction, 88, 446-47 (Fortress Press 1985).

      . Similarly, we note that in 1993, Congress quickly repudiated Smith and revived the balancing test set forth in Yoder by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq. (RFRA). Under the RFRA, which tracks First Amendment jurisprudence, government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that the burden (i.e., the law at issue): (1) furthers a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-l(b)(l)-(2); United States v. Meyers, 906 F.Supp. 1494, 1498 (D.Wyo.1995).

      . Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ.App. P. 128.05, subsequent to oral argument, appellant brought to our attention the Eighth Circuit’s decision in McCarthy v. Ozark Sch. Dist., 359 F.3d 1029 (8th Cir.2004). In McCarthy, schoolchildren challenged an Arkansas statute that required immunization of children against hepatitis B. Id. at 1032. The district court determined that the statute violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because an exemption to the statute only applied to the religious tenets of an organized church or a religious denomination. Id. The Eighth Circuit determined that the case was moot because after the district court's decision the Arkansas legislature amended the exemption making it applicable to religious or philosophical beliefs. Id. at 1035-37. Appellant contends that McCarthy recognized that a religious liberty exemption from a general law must include not only adherence to a recognized religion but persons having fundamental religious or philosophical objections to the law. We conclude, however, that McCarthy does not alter our analysis in this case for three reasons. First, for purposes of its analysis, the Eighth Circuit assumed that the appellants in McCarthy had a sincerely held religious belief, and therefore, analyzed the alleged beliefs. Id. Here, we cannot assume that Pedersen had a sincerely held religious belief because that determination is a threshold issue in this case. Second, neither the district court nor the Eighth Circuit analyzed McCarthy under the Free Exercise Clause of the United States Constitution. Id. Thus, the holding in McCarthy is not on point in this case, which is based on a violation of the Minnesota Constitution's Freedom of Conscience Clause, the companion clause to the Free Exercise Clause of the United States Constitution. Lastly, as alluded to earlier in this opinion, we agree that appellant need not prove that her sincerely held religious belief is based on the tenets of an organized religion, but the belief must be based on some communal belief system pertaining to the spiritual or eternal. We conclude that from the record in this case, appellant has failed to meet this burden.

      . For example, in Hershberger, which involved the constitutionality of Minn.Stat. § 169.522, requiring slow-moving vehicles to display a fluorescent orange-red triangular sign emblem when being operated on public highways, the court held that the Amish had demonstrated a sincerely held religious belief, and that the state law interfered with that belief. Id. at 399. The court further held that the state failed to meet its burden to establish that the state's interest in public safety could not be achieved by less restrictive means, such as the use of white reflective tape and a lighted red lantern. Id.

      . Moreover, Dr. Morgan testified that he never personally examined appellant, never weighed her, and that the weight of 110 pounds on a five-foot-tall female is not life threatening.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: WRIGHT, Judge.

license: Public Domain

text:
    STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Frank Edward JOHNSON, Appellant.
    No. A03-469.
    Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
    May 18, 2004.

      Mike Hatch, Attorney General, James B. Early, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, MN, and Raymond F. Schmitz, Olmsted County Attorney, Olmsted County Courthouse, Rochester, MN, for respondent.
    John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Rochelle R. Winn, Assistant State Public Defender, Minneapolis, MN, for appellant.
    Considered and decided by WILLIS, Presiding Judge; SCHUMACHER, Judge; and WRIGHT, Judge.
   OPINION

WRIGHT, Judge.

In this appeal from convictions of first-degree burglary, fifth-degree assault, and third-degree criminal sexual conduct, and from the denial of a motion for a new trial, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the jury instructions, and prose-cutorial comments in closing argument. Appellant raises additional arguments in his pro se brief. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

FACTS

Jesse Maki and Melodee Rohrer leased a one-bedroom apartment in Rochester. They permitted Lisa Madison and O.S. to stay with them without charging rent. Madison was staying with the couple for about three weeks until her apartment became available; O.S. had been there for about a month and was staying until she could find another place to live. Generally, Madison slept in the living room on an inflatable mattress. But if Rohrer and Maki were going to be up late, they allowed Madison, who worked an early shift, to sleep in their bedroom. O.S. usually slept on the floor of the living room.

On September 3, 2002, the four roommates went to CJ’s, a karaoke bar, where O.S. met appellant Frank Johnson. While at the bar, O.S. danced with and talked to Johnson. During the course of the evening, Johnson began kissing O.S. Although O.S. initially returned the kisses, she later rebuffed Johnson.

O.S. left the bar to give Madison a ride home. Because Maki and Rohrer planned to stay up late, Madison went to sleep in the bedroom as previously arranged. O.S. returned to the bar for several hours. Rohrer, Maki, O.S., and Johnson returned to the apartment after the bar closed.

When Rohrer and Maki started arguing, Johnson and O.S. went to the bathroom to talk. After the argument ended, they returned to the living room. Shortly thereafter, O.S. went into the bathroom and started taking a shower.

O.S. testified at trial that Johnson appeared in the shower without any clothes on and cornered her. She told Johnson that she did not want to do this because she was feeling uncomfortable. Johnson retreated at first, but he approached O.S. again in the shower. O.S. told Johnson no and got out of the shower. As O.S. was getting dressed, Johnson told her to take off her pants. O.S. refused. Johnson then told O.S. that he was going to rip her pants off, and he pushed her against the wall. O.S. fell to the floor.

When Johnson leaned over O.S. and tried to convince her to have sex with him, O.S. continued to refuse. She testified that she did not scream because she thought she could handle Johnson’s advances, and she did not want anyone to feel sorry for her. Johnson eventually penetrated her.

Rohrer walked in the bathroom and saw Johnson and O.S. O.S. testified that she did not say anything, but she gave Rohrer a look with which she intended to communicate, “Help me get out of here.” Rohrer left the bathroom without assisting O.S.

Testifying as a defense witness, Rohrer explained that, in the bar, Johnson and O.S. had been “awfully friendly” and that it looked like “maybe something ... was going to happen between them that night.” Rohrer testified that she did not hear any noise coming from the bathroom during the period when, according to O.S., Johnson was raping O.S. Rohrer explained that, when she went to the bathroom, she found O.S. and Johnson sitting on the floor. Rohrer testified that “[O.S.’s] back was against the wall and her legs were spread and [Johnson] was sitting in between her,” with O.S.’s arms around his neck. Johnson turned around and said “hey,” but O.S. did not say anything. Rohrer described O.S.’s expression as an “oh sh-t kind of look,” not a frightened look. Rohrer then walked out and slammed the door behind her.

O.S. testified that, after Rohrer left, she told Johnson that she was going to vomit, and he got off of her. O.S. returned to the living room and Johnson followed shortly thereafter. O.S. sat across the room from him with her head between her legs because she was disgusted and did not want to look at him. When Johnson and O.S. were briefly alone, Johnson asked O.S., “What do I have to do to push you down, do I have to hold you now?” O.S. responded, “No, you don’t.” Johnson then grabbed O.S. and held her down. As Maki returned to the living room, Johnson released O.S., who then went to the bedroom.

When O.S. went into the bedroom where Madison was sleeping, she crawled into bed on the other side of Madison. Madison described O.S. as trembling like a leaf, distraught, “sheet white,” and very upset. O.S. asked if she could sleep in the bed with Madison. Madison consented and asked O.S. what was wrong. O.S. told Madison, “[He] raped me.” When Madison asked O.S. who had raped her, O.S. started crying.

The events on which the burglary and assault convictions are based happened next. Rohrer testified that, after O.S. went to the bedroom, she, Maki, and Johnson sat in the living room while Johnson had a cigarette. As Rohrer prepared to go to bed, Johnson asked if he could go into the bedroom to say goodbye to O.S. Rohrer gave Johnson permission, but told him to be quiet because Madison was sleeping.

Johnson walked into the bedroom at about the same time that Madison asked O.S. who raped her. Madison testified that Johnson told O.S. to come out of the bedroom so that he could talk to her. O.S. told Johnson that she did not want to talk to him or go anywhere with him. Madison, who described Johnson as very drunk and angry, told Johnson three times to leave the bedroom. Johnson struck Madison. Conflicting testimony was given as to when Rohrer and Maki came into the bedroom, whether Rohrer told Johnson to leave the bedroom, and whether this occurred before Johnson struck Madison.

Rohrer, O.S., and Madison then went to the police station so that O.S. could report the rape. Rohrer returned home while Madison accompanied O.S. to the emergency room for tests.

Rohrer asked Johnson to leave the apartment, but he refused to do so. The police were called to the apartment and two officers handcuffed Johnson and took him to detox.

A few days later, Johnson’s girlfriend and another woman approached O.S. in a bar and tried to persuade her to change her story by threatening to follow O.S. out of the bar and jump her. Later, at another bar, a friend of Johnson asked O.S. whether it was true that Johnson raped her. When O.S. said it was, the friend advised her to “watch her back.” O.S. then told Johnson’s girlfriend that she was going to drop the charges.

O.S. went to the police station and told the police she wanted to drop the charges because she was afraid for her life. She told the police, however, that what she told them the night of the rape was true, that she was not recanting, and that she only told Johnson’s friends that she was recanting because of their threats.

After a trial, the jury found Johnson guilty of first-degree burglary, third-degree criminal sexual conduct, and fifth-degree assault. The district court denied Johnson’s posttrial motions, and this appeal followed.

ISSUES

I. Was the evidence insufficient as a matter of law to convict appellant of first-degree burglary?

II. Did the district court err in refusing to instruct the jury on trespassing as a lesser-included offense?

III. Was the evidence insufficient as a matter of law to convict appellant of third-degree criminal sexual conduct?

IV. Was appellant’s right to a fair trial denied based on jury instructions or improper final argument by the prosecutor?

Y. Can appellant prevail on his pro se arguments?

ANALYSIS

“Construction of a criminal statute is a question of law subject to de novo review.” State v. Colvin, 645 N.W.2d 449, 452 (Minn.2002). Our canons of construction require us to construe a statute according to its plain language. See Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2002). If the language of the statute is ambiguous, the legislature’s intent controls. Colvin, 645 N.W.2d at 452. “A rule of strict construction applies to penal statutes, and all reasonable doubt concerning legislative intent should be resolved in favor of the defendant.” Id. Criminal statutes must be strictly construed. Id.

Wdien considering a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, we view the evi-' dence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the jury believed the evidence supporting the conviction and disbelieved any contradictory evidence. State v. Pippitt, 645 N.W.2d 87, 92 (Minn. 2002). “[I]t is the function of the jury to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses.” Id. Thus, we will not disturb the verdict if, after a careful analysis of the record, we determine that “a jury, giving due regard to the presumption of innocence and to the state’s burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty based on the facts in the record and any legitimate inferences therefrom.” State v. Harris, 589 N.W.2d 782, 791 (Minn.1999) (quoting State v. Wallace, 558 N.W.2d 469, 472 (Minn.1997)).

I.

Johnson first argues that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to convict him of first-degree burglary. Johnson’s burglary conviction is based on Johnson’s act of committing an assault after he was told to leave the bedroom of the apartment. Johnson contends that, because no one who had lawful possession of the apartment told him to leave prior to the assault, he had permission to be in the bedroom and thus did not commit a burglary. We, therefore, examine the facts in the light most favorable to the jury verdict and then apply the burglary statute to those facts.

We first consider whether the tenants, Rohrer and Maki, who indisputably had lawful possession of the apartment, told Johnson to leave the bedroom before the assault occurred. The evidence on this point is contraverted. Rohrer testified that she never told Johnson to leave. Rather, after the assault, she told Maki to get Johnson out of the bedroom and that if Johnson could not calm down, she wanted him out of the apartment. Madison testified initially that the tenants were not in the bedroom before she was struck. When later asked by counsel when the tenants arrived, Madison recalled that they arrived and told Johnson to leave the bedroom prior to the assault. Specifically, Madison testified that, in an attempt to get Johnson to leave, Rohrer pushed Johnson on his right shoulder and told him he was not allowed in the bedroom, that Madison was sleeping and needed to get up in the morning, and that Johnson should not be there. Maki also told Johnson that he did not belong in the bedroom and that he needed to leave the room. Then Johnson assaulted Madison. Based on Madison’s testimony, the jury had evidence from which it could reasonably conclude that the tenants told Johnson to leave the bedroom before the assault occurred.

We now examine these facts to determine whether as a matter of law the evidence was sufficient to constitute burglary in the first degree. One who “enters a building without consent and commits a crime while in the building” commits first-degree burglary if “the burglar assaults a person within the building.” Minn.Stat. § 609.582, subd. 1(c) (2002). It is undisputed that Johnson committed an assault while within the building. The issue presented here is whether Johnson was in the building without consent when the assault occurred. Entering a building without consent is defined as:

(a) to enter a building without the consent of the person in lawful possession;
(b) to enter a building by using artifice, trick, or misrepresentation to obtain consent to enter from the person in lawful possession; or
(c) to remain within a building without the consent of the person in lawful possession.

Minn.Stat. § 609.581, subd. 4 (2002) (emphasis added). A building is defined as “a structure suitable for affording shelter for human beings, including any appurtenant or connected structure.” Minn.Stat. § 609.581, subd. 2 (2002).

We must determine whether, when Johnson had permission to be in the apartment, the withdrawal of consent to be in the bedroom constituted remaining within the “building” without the consent of those in lawful possession under Minn.Stat. § 609.581, subd. 4(c).

The state argues that Johnson committed burglary because he remained in the bedroom without the consent of the tenants and committed an assault. In State v. Totimeh, the defendant entered a campus house and committed sexual assault in a bedroom after being told to leave the house by another resident. 433 N.W.2d 921, 923 (Minn.App.1988), review denied (Minn. Feb. 22, 1989). The defendant maintained that he was in the house with consent because it was common practice on campus for guests to enter common areas of a house without specific permission. Id. The defendant was a stranger, not a guest; and the residents testified that this common practice did not extend to private bedrooms. Id. We held that, when the defendant failed to comply after being told to leave the house several times, the state met its burden of proving that he entered the building without consent. Id. (citing Minn.Stat. § 609.581, subd. 4(c)). The instant case, however, is distinguishable because Johnson entered the apartment and the bedroom with the express consent of the tenants and later was told to leave only the bedroom.

While we are mindful that the specific statutory language at issue must be considered, other jurisdictions that have addressed whether rented rooms constitute a separate building provide useful guidance to our analysis. “The question whether a rented room is a separate building turns on, among other things, physical access, whether the unit is ‘self-contained.’ ” State v. Pena, 183 Or.App. 211, 51 P.3d 646, 649 (2002). When a tenant, who rented a room in a single-family home and had access to the kitchen and living room, but not to other locked rooms, entered the locked area and stole items, a burglary was committed. Wesolic v. State, 837 P.2d 130, 131-33 (Alaska Ct.App.1992). Similarly, the Minnesota Supreme Court has held that a defendant who walked through a portion of a store that was open to the public, committed a burglary when he entered a storage room that was not open to the public and tried to gain access to the locked pharmacy to steal drugs. State v. McDonald, 346 N.W.2d 351, 352 (Minn.1984). In contrast, while Johnson sought and received permission to go into the bedroom, the bedroom was neither separately rented out nor a self-contained unit such that when the tenants revoked their consent to Johnson’s presence in the bedroom, it constituted a separate “building” for purposes of the burglary statute.

Because permission to be in the apartment was not withdrawn when the tenants told Johnson to leave the bedroom, Johnson’s actions did not satisfy the burglary statute’s requirement of remaining “within a building without the consent of the person in lawful possession.”

The state also argues that the jury reasonably could have found that Johnson obtained consent from Rohrer to enter the bedroom by misrepresenting to her that he was only going into the bedroom to say goodbye to O.S. when in fact he tried to persuade O.S. to leave with him instead. It is true that, under the burglary statute, entering a building without consent includes entering the building “by using artifice, trick, or misrepresentation to obtain consent to enter from the person in lawful possession.” Minn.Stat. § 609.581, subd. 4(b); see also State v. Zenanko, 552 N.W.2d 541, 542 (Minn.1996) (upholding burglary conviction based on entry by misrepresentation). But the jury was not instructed on subdivision 4(b). Rather, the state requested and the district court gave the instruction for subdivision 4(c), remaining within a building without consent. See Minn.Stat. § 609.581, subd. 4(c). Consequently, the conviction cannot be based on the misrepresentation theory.

II.

Johnson next contends that the district court erred when it refused to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of trespass. In light of our reversal of the burglary conviction, we need not reach this issue.

III.

Johnson also challenges his conviction of third-degree criminal sexual conduct, arguing that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law. We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, assuming that the jury credited evidence supporting the conviction and discredited evidence to the contrary. Pippitt, 645 N.W.2d at 92. Minor inconsistencies and conflicts in evidence do not necessarily render testimony false or provide the basis for reversal. State v. Stufflebean, 329 N.W.2d 314, 319 (Minn.1983). Corroboration is not required in criminal sexual conduct cases. Minn.Stat. § 609.347, subd. 1 (2002). But “[t]he absence of corroboration in an individual case ... may well call for a holding that there is insufficient evidence upon which a jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Ani, 257 N.W.2d 699, 700 (Minn.1977) (quoting Note, The Rape Corroboration Requirement, 81 Yale L.J. 1365,1391 (1972)).

Johnson contends that inconsistencies in O.S.’s testimony, the lack of corroboration, her recantation, and her own conduct, which he asserts was inconsistent with one who has been forcibly raped, render the evidence insufficient as a matter of law to convict him of third-degree criminal sexual conduct. We disagree. First, the inconsistencies and related credibility determinations were for the jury to assess. Pippitt, 645 N.W.2d at 92. In addition, O.S.’s testimony was corroborated in several ways. A prompt complaint by a victim is corroborative evidence of a rape. State v. Reinke, 343 N.W.2d 660, 662 (Minn.1984). O.S. told Madison about the rape shortly after it occurred and reported it to the police the same night. Testimony from others about a victim’s emotional condition after a sexual assault is also corroborative evidence. Id. The record establishes that O.S. was trembling, very distraught, “sheet white,” and very upset when she came into the bedroom where Madison was sleeping, and she started crying when asked who raped her. O.S. was still visibly shaking when she went to the police station and reported the rape.

Although there is evidence that O.S. recanted, the jury also heard testimony that the recantation was in response to threats from Johnson’s acquaintances. O.S. explained this to the police and informed the police that her report of rape was true. Finally, as to whether O.S.’s conduct during the rape was inconsistent with a sexual assault, the jury heard the explicit testimony of O.S. recounting facts, as described above, that satisfy the elements of third-degree criminal sexual conduct. See Minn. Stat. § 609.344, subd. 1(c) (2002) (sexual penetration accomplished by force or coercion). The verdict clearly was based on sufficient evidence from which the jury could convict Johnson of third-degree criminal sexual conduct, where the jury obviously credited O.S.’s testimony.

IV.

Johnson contends that the district court denied his right to a fair trial because it instructed the jury that an alleged victim’s testimony need not be corroborated and because the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct in its closing argument.

District courts have “considerable latitude” in determining the language used to instruct the jury. State v. Gray, 456 N.W.2d 251, 258 (Minn.1990). An instruction is erroneous if it materially misstates the law. State v. Kuhnau, 622 N.W.2d 552, 556 (Minn.2001). It is the burden of the defendant to show prejudice from the error. Id.

Although the testimony of a victim of criminal sexual conduct need not be corroborated, Minn.Stat. § 609.347, subd. 1, it is improper to instruct the jury that corroboration is not required because the lack of corroboration is an evidentiary matter, rather than a substantive matter. State v. Williams, 363 N.W.2d 911, 914 (Minn.App.1985), review denied (Minn. May 1, 1985). But where the jury is properly instructed on the burden of proof and the state’s need to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, we have held that the erroneous instruction was not prejudicial. Id.

Here, the court instructed the jury as follows: “The testimony of an alleged victim need not be corroborated but a lack of corroboration may be a relevant consideration in determining believability.” The state contends that, while the first clause may be considered error, the second clause favors Johnson and offsets the error. We agree. Moreover, the record establishes that corroboration was abundant here. When the challenged instruction is considered in conjunction with the district court’s proper instruction of the jury on the state’s burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt, we do not find prejudicial error. See id.

Johnson also challenges various statements the prosecutor made during closing arguments. “The propriety of a prosecutor’s final argument is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court.” State v. Parker, 353 N.W.2d 122, 127 (Minn.1984). We examine the prosecutor’s argument as a whole to determine whether it provides a basis for reversal. State v. Gassler, 505 N.W.2d 62, 69 (Minn.1993). Johnson failed to object to the comments he now challenges. “Generally, a defendant is deemed to have waived his right to raise an issue concerning the prosecutor’s closing remarks if the defendant fails to object or seek cautionary instructions.” Parker, 353 N.W.2d at 127. Notwithstanding the failure to object, we will reverse a conviction “if the prosecutor’s comments are unduly prejudicial.” Id. at 127-28.

Johnson maintains that the state unduly emphasized the erroneous corroboration instruction during closing arguments. Johnson also contends that he was denied the right to a fair trial because the prosecutor argued that Johnson acted in conformity with Johnson’s “bad character.” After a careful review of the prosecutor’s closing argument, we hold that Johnson has failed to demonstrate that these statements constitute prosecutorial misconduct warranting a new trial. See State v. Steward, 645 N.W.2d 115, 124-25 (Minn.2002).

Despite Johnson’s failure to object, of greater concern are Johnson’s assertions that the prosecutor improperly commented on Johnson’s failure to present evidence and failure to testify. The state argued as follows:

What evidence do we have before us that tells us that [O.S.] said words or did overt acts to communicate this freely given present agreement for a particular sexual act? I suggest to you, ladies and gentlemen ... the evidence from which you can decide this case is void of any direct evidence showing this agreement to consent to sex. The sex has been proven, but the words or overt acts showing the consent, where is the evidence?
Now, I want to be very, very clear. You shall draw no inference whatsoever from the defendant’s right not to testify. That’s his right and you cannot draw any inference one way or the other about that, but you are confined in your decision to the evidence in the record that is before us and that is the testimony and the exhibits here. There is not a single witness who can stand up and say I heard [O.S.] say let’s have sex. There’s not a witness that can say I saw the sorts of actions, overt action that would imply that.

The state has the burden of proving the essential elements of the case beyond a reasonable doubt. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 362, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 1071, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970). The prosecutor may not comment on the defendant’s failure to call witnesses. Gassier, 505 N.W.2d at 69. The above excerpt of the closing argument is improper because it suggests to the jury that a defendant bears some burden of proof or that he did not call a witness because the testimony would be unfavorable. See State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 127, 218 N.W.2d 197, 200 (1974).

But prosecutorial misconduct in itself is insufficient to require reversal. State v. Spencer, 311 Minn. 222, 230-31, 248 N.W.2d 915, 920 (1976). Under certain circumstances, a remark by a prosecutor on the lack of evidence regarding the defense theory does not shift the burden of proof to the defense. Gassier, 505 N.W.2d at 69. If the defendant had objected, curative instructions given by the district court could have ameliorated the improper prosecutorial comment. Caron, 300 Minn, at 127, 218 N.W.2d at 200. Failure to object may indicate that defense counsel did not consider the error obvious or important. See Spencer, 311 Minn, at 230, 248 N.W.2d at 920. Nevertheless, the district court’s final instructions advised the jury that closing arguments of counsel are not evidence, and the final instructions properly set forth the state’s burden of proof along with the absence of any burden of proof for the defense. We presume that the jury followed the instructions. See State v. Taylor, 650 N.W.2d 190, 207 (Minn.2002).

A prosecutor “shall not allude to the defendant’s failure to testify.” State v. Whittaker, 568 N.W.2d 440, 451 (Minn.1997). This “may be either per se reversible error or harmless error.” Id. Comments that constitute reversible error occur “when the comment is extensive, when the comment stresses to the jury that an inference of guilt from silence is a basis for conviction, and when there is evidence that could have supported acquittal.” Id. Otherwise, the error is harmless. Id. Here, the focus of the prosecutor’s argument was on the credibility of the witnesses, and the jury could have acquitted had they found O.S.’s testimony not credible. But the improper comments were not extensive, and there was no objection to them. In light of the entire record, the error attributable to the prosecutorial misconduct was harmless.

V.

Johnson raises a number of issues in his pro se brief. Having carefully reviewed these issues, we conclude that they are without merit.

DECISION

Because the evidence considered in the light most favorable to the verdict is insufficient for a conviction of burglary in the first degree, we reverse that conviction. The evidence, however, is sufficient to support the conviction of third-degree criminal sexual conduct. The erroneous jury instructions and improper comments by the prosecutor are not prejudicial, and the allegations of other errors lack merit.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

      . For the same reasons discussed above, the state's argument that the burglary conviction is supported by sufficient evidence because Madison had authority to revoke the consent to be present in the bedroom is equally unavailing.


author: TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge.

text:
    TRANSIT TEAM, INC., Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL, Respondent, Laidlaw Transit Services, Inc., Respondent.
    No. A03-1344.
    Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
    May 18, 2004.

      Mark J. Condon, Johnson & Condon, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for appellant.
    Perry M. Wilson, III, Angela M. Hall, Steven K. Champlin, Dorsey & Whitney, LLP, Minneapolis, MN, for respondent Metropolitan Council.
    Charles K. Maier, Erik T. Salveson, Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty & Bennett, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for respondent Laidlaw Transit Services.
    Considered and decided by TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge; ANDERSON, Judge; and HUSPENI, Judge.

       Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const, art. VI, § 10.

   OPINION

TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge.

Appellant Transit Team, Inc. challenges the award of the 2003-07 Metro Mobility paratransit service contract to respondent-intervenor Laidlaw Transit Services, Inc., contending that (a) the contract award is not legal because respondent Metropolitan Council failed to adopt new procurement standards as required under Minn.Stat. § 473.392 (2002); (b) even if the council could rely on procurement standards adopted by its predecessor, it substantially deviated from those standards; (c) Laid-law’s proposal was illegal and void where it substantially varied from the requirements in the request for proposals; (d) the district court erred by denying Transit Team relief when it enjoined the council from future paratransit awards and implicitly invalidated the procedures; and (e) the district court failed to make special findings of fact and conclusions of law under Minn. R. Civ. P. 52. Because the district court properly determined that the Metropolitan Council substantially complied with standards adopted by its predecessor, and that those standards remain effective, we affirm the district court’s enforcement of the contract between Laidlaw and the council. But because the court improperly enjoined the Metropolitan Council from issuing future paratransit service contracts, we reverse and dissolve the court’s injunction.

FACTS

Before 1994, the Regional Transit Board (RTB) managed public transit services in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area, including all paratransit services. That year, in an effort to consolidate and coordinate metropolitan planning,, the legislature abolished the RTB, along with the Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC) and the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC), and transferred the three agencies’ authorities to respondent Metropolitan Council (the council). 1994 Minn. Laws, ch. 628, art. 2, § 4, subds. 1-3.

Before this legislative action, the RTB had developed standards, procedures and guidelines for the competitive procurement of public transit services. These standards and procedures were delineated in the RTB’s competitive procurement manual, which provided detailed instructions on how the board was to solicit, review, evaluate, and award transportation contracts. The council, upon assuming the RTB’s authority, never specifically adopted the RTB’s guidelines, but continued to use RTB forms that adhered to the guidelines as “templates” for their own procurement processes.

On October 10, 2002, using the “templates” originally derived from RTB documents, the council solicited proposals for the operation of its Metro Mobility para-transit services for four years. The solicitation, known as a Request for Proposals (RFP), described the services required by the council, provided instructions for preparing the proposals, and explained the criteria under which the proposals would be evaluated. Six companies, including Transit Team and Laidlaw, submitted proposals in response to the RFP.

An evaluation committee analyzed the proposals pursuant to an eight-point evaluation procedure delineated in the RFP. Ultimately, the evaluation committee unanimously chose to recommend Laidlaw’s proposal to the council’s transportation committee. After public hearings, the transportation committee recommended Laidlaw’s proposal to the full council. The council subsequently awarded Laidlaw the Metro Mobility contract.

Transit Team filed suit, seeking an injunction preventing the council from entering into a contract with Laidlaw, a declaration that the contract was illegal and void, and an order to re-bid the contract in compliance with the applicable statute. The district court, after a five-day trial, denied Transit Team’s requests, finding that the bidding evaluation process was fair, and that the council substantially complied with the statutory guidelines that govern competitive bidding. Notwithstanding these findings, the court enjoined the council from issuing any future para-transit service contracts before restructuring its procurement standards, finding that most council staff members were unaware, or at best only partially aware, of the procedures for soliciting and evaluating paratransit bids.

Transit Team, due to the district court’s denial of its claims, filed a motion for a new trial, special amended findings of fact, amended conclusions of law, and amended judgment. The district court denied these motions, and Transit Team now appeals. The council, due to the court’s injunction, filed a notice of review.

ISSUES

I. Does Minn.Stat. § 473.392 (2002) apply to competitive bids for para-transit service contracts?
II. Did the Metropolitan Council, in assuming all RTB responsibility, inherit the standards and guidelines of its predecessor?
III. Did the district court err in finding that the Metropolitan Council substantially complied with MinmStat. § 473.392?
IV. Was the district court’s determination that Laidlaw substantially followed the requirements of the request for proposals contrary to the evidence in the record?
V. Did the district court’s order fail to comply with the rules of civil procedure?
VI. Did the district court err in enjoining the Metropolitan Council from awarding further paratransit awards?

ANALYSIS

On appeal from a bid protest, “the findings of the trial court are entitled to the same weight as a jury verdict and will not be disturbed on appeal unless they are manifestly contrary to the evidence and without reasonable evidentiary support.” Gale v. City of St. Paul, 255 Minn. 108, 112, 96 N.W.2d 377, 380 (1959). This court, however, reviews questions of law de novo. Am. Nat’l Gen. Ins. Co. v. Solum, 641 N.W.2d 891, 895 (Minn.2002).

I.

We begin by addressing the council’s argument that the district court erred as a matter of law in holding that Minn.Stat. § 473.392 applies to the present procurement process. Section 473.392 provides that “the council may competitively bid transit services only in accordance with standards, procedures, and guidelines adopted by resolution of the council.” Minn.Stat. § 473.392 (2002). The statute further mandates that the council develop these standards, procedures, and guidelines with the assistance of a project management team, which “must include representatives of the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1005, private operators, local governments, and other persons interested in the subject.” Id.

The council asserts that since section 473.392 requires a project management team consisting of union members and other parties uninvolved in paratransit services, the section “is clearly directed at competitive bidding for ... what would commonly be understood to be mass transit.” Thus, it contends that Minn.Stat. § 473.386 (2002) alone should govern this contract; the services involved in this dispute are “special transportation services,” and section 473.386 has its own standards and guidelines for special transportation service contracts.

We agree that Metro Mobility services are “special transportation services” as intended by section 473.386. But we disagree that competitive bidding for these services is governed solely by the rudimentary procurement guidelines provided in that section.

Section 473.386 provides that special transportation service contracts must “specify the service to be provided, the standards that must be met, and the rates for operating and providing special transportation services.” Minn.Stat. § 473.386, subd. 2. The statute further requires the council to “contract with public, private, and private nonprofit providers that have demonstrated their ability to effectively provide service at a reasonable cost.” Id., subd. 3(a).

Though the council urges that these are the only standards that should apply for special transportation service contracts, we note that section 473.386 does not expressly address competitive procurement; section 473.392, on the other hand, clearly does. See MinmStat. § 645.26, subd. 1 (2002) (particular statutes control over general). Further, section 473.392 makes no distinction between “regular route transit” and “paratransit,” but instead applies to all competitive bids for “transit service.” Minn.Stat. § 473.392. “Transit” service, by statutory definition, includes both regular route service and paratransit service. MinmStat. § 174.22, subd. 7 (2002). The procurement guidelines adopted by the council (or its predecessors) would therefore apply equally to both.

We do not adopt the council’s assertion that section 473.392 is only directed at competitive bidding for mass transit. In our view, if the legislature intended the statute to apply only to regular route transit, it would have clearly expressed such intention. Because the statute instead expressly applies to all “transit,” it applies here.

II.

Having determined that Minn.Stat. § 473.392 applies, we turn next to the merits of Transit Team’s arguments. Transit Team first challenges the district court’s determination that the council followed Minn.Stat. § 473.392 by relying on the RTB’s guidelines to solicit, evaluate, and award bids. It argues that section 473.392 was specifically created to require the council to adopt its own competitive bidding standards, rather than rely on those of the RTB, because “the system was broken ... and the legislature was fixing it.”

Chapter 628 of the 1994 Laws of Minnesota, which includes the amendments to section 473.392, provided sweeping changes to the landscape of metropolitan government. The power of several formerly autonomous agencies, the RTB included, was consolidated into a single entity: the Metropolitan Council. 1994 Minn. Laws, ch. 628, art. 2, § 4, subds. 1-3. The council, in turn, was given four new divisions: transportation, environment, community development, and administration. Id., § 3, subd. 2.

Because of these separate divisions, the effects of the new law could not generally be felt in day-to-day operations; the new council divisions seamlessly assumed the duties, responsibilities, and activities of the former agencies. See id., § 4. But the legislation was substantial nonetheless, for the changes placed a single entity (the council) under direct supervision of the governor, leading to less autonomy and greater accountability. See id., art. 1, §§ 5, 6.

This historical perspective provides the context of our consideration of Transit Team’s assertion that the legislature intended the council to adopt its own procurement procedures. Transit Team argues that the RTB was abolished, “at least in part, for leaving the seven-county agency paratransit service in a state of chaos and stranding disabled and elderly riders.” Transit Team argues that because of the RTB’s ineffective administration, the legislature specifically mandated that former RTB policy be abandoned. It points to the language of 1994 Minn. Laws, eh. 628, art. 2, § 4, subd. 1, which states that “[p]olicy with respect to [transportation] activities must be recommended by the transportation division committee of the metropolitan council to the full council,” as well as the language of Minn.Stat. § 473.392, which states that competitive bids must be procured “only in accordance with standards, procedures, and guidelines adopted by resolution of the council,” as evidence of the legislature’s disdain for the RTB’s internal policies.

We do not adopt Transit Team’s assertions that chapter 628 was a direct reaction to the plight of stranded riders. Instead, as stated above, we conclude that the purpose of the changes in the statute was to consolidate and contain the authority of various metropolitan agencies. In fact, the language Transit Team relies on in subdivision 1 as indicative of the legislature’s reaction to the alleged “chaos” at the RTB is identical to the language used in subdivisions 2 and 3 to abolish the Metropolitan Transit Commission and the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. Compare 1994 Minn. Laws ch. 628, art. 2, § 4, subd. 2 (“Policy with respect to [Metropolitan Transit Commission] activities must be recommended by the transportation division committee of the metropolitan council to the full council.”), with id., subd. 3 (“Policy with respect to [Metropolitan Waste Control Commission] activities must be recommended by the environment division committee of the metropolitan council to the full council.”) The language merely reflects the legislature’s distribution of the council’s new authority into its new divisions; it does not reflect the urgency and imminent catastrophe that Transit Team suggests.

Further, the changes made to section 473.392 also fail to reflect a legislative mandate to overhaul the bidding process. An examination of the 1994 amendment to the statute reveals that the only substantial changes made to that statute were the deletion of the reference to the “metropolitan transit authority” and the replacement of the words “regional transit board” and “board” with the word “council.” 1994 Minn. Laws ch. 628, art. 3, § 96. These changes reflect the council’s assumption of the RTB’s authorities and activities.

Without a clear legislative mandate that the council was to abandon all prior RTB policies, the district court properly determined that “[f]or all purposes relevant to this case the council became the RTB and all RTB actions and policies became council actions and policies until further action by the council.”

III.

Transit Team next argues that, even if the council could follow previous RTB standards and still comply with Minn. Stat. § 473.492, it did not follow these standards when it issued its RFP. Further, Transit Team asserts that the council abandoned the evaluative guidelines established under the RFP once the evaluation process began. An evaluation of the record, however, reveals that the trial court properly held that the RFP substantially followed the standards and the evaluative process substantially adhered to the RFP.

A. Compliance with RTB standards in issuing the request

The purpose of standards and guidelines for competitive bidding is to prevent such abuses as fraud, favoritism, extravagance, and improvidence, and to promote honesty, economy, and aboveboard dealing. Cotter v. City of St. Paul, 223 Minn. 376, 387-88, 26 N.W.2d 835, 841 (1947). Set guidelines give all prospective contractors an equal opportunity to bid and to assure taxpayers of the best bargain for the least money. See Nielsen v. City of St. Paul, 252 Minn. 12, 20, 88 N.W.2d 853, 858 (1958). If the guidelines are substantially followed, minor defects in the procurement process will not be sufficient to void a contract into which the parties have already entered. Telephone Assocs., Inc., v. St. Louis Cty. Bd., 364 N.W.2d 378, 382 (Minn.1985).

Here, after weighing the evidence from a five-day trial, the district court determined that the council’s request for proposals complied with RTB standards. It found, after analyzing this evidence, that “nearly all of the relevant guidelines were followed in this case.”

Reviewing the record, there is no reason to disturb the district court’s finding. David Jacobson, the Metro Mobility general manager, testified that prior requests for proposals, based on the RTB standards, were used as “templates” for the current request. An exhibit proffered by the council offered a line-by-line comparison of the Metro Transit RFP to the adopted RTB guidelines. This comparison reveals that the council’s request did not stray far from the guidelines, and that any deviation, in the words of the district court, is “form over substance.”

B. Compliance with RFP evaluative guidelines in awarding contract

The record also supports the district court’s finding that the council properly weighed the evaluation criteria listed in the request for proposals. The counsel’s transportation committee evaluated six companies’ proposals under the RFP’s criteria, and all six companies were found to be capable of doing the work. However, Laidlaw’s proposal was unanimously selected because of numerous factors, including a new fleet, a strong staffing plan, best value for price, and company experience both locally and nationally. Though price was also an issue because of the considerable difference between the proposals by Laidlaw and Transit Team, it was not the exclusive factor, as Transit Team asserts. The record supports the court’s conclusion that the evaluative process was not “turned on its head.”

Transit Team asserts that the RFP guidelines should have allowed it an opportunity to match Laidlaw’s proposed price. Though the record indicates that the council once approached Transit Team to negotiate a lower price on a previous proposal, the president of Transit Team concedes that this RFP contains no language mandating such an opportunity, and that most previous dealings with the council and RTB included no such negotiation. The closest language in the RFP provided that the council’s evaluation team may request interviews or oral presentations. Such language does not create an obligation on the part of the council to renegotiate every proposal submitted. As such, because each bidder was given an equal opportunity to submit a proposal, Transit Team’s assertion that the review process was somehow unfair is unsupported.

IV.

Transit Team next contends that Laid-law’s proposal substantially varied from the requirements of the council’s RFP, and that it was therefore the council’s duty to reject the bid. Specifically, Transit Team points to Laidlaw’s proposal being contingent on acceptance before March 15, 2003, and on fuel prices remaining below $1.40, as indicia of Laidlaw’s failure to provide a set cost estimate. This failure, Transit Team asserts, is in direct violation of the RFP because the RFP expressly mandates a total dollar amount for vehicle costs and fuel.

A proposal must conform substantially to advertised plans and specifications, and where there is a substantial variance between the proposal and the plans and specifications, it is the plain duty of the public authority to reject the proposal. Coller 223 Minn, at 385, 26 N.W.2d at 840. A proposal containing immaterial variances or minor technical defects, however, should not be rejected if the defect does not affect the substance of the bid. Otter Tail Power Co. v. Mackichan, 270 Minn. 262, 275, 133 N.W.2d 511, 519 (1965). “The test of whether a variance is material is whether it gives a bidder a substantial advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders.” Coller, 223 Minn, at 385, 26 N.W.2d at 840.

Here the district court determined that the purported contingencies were not material variances because they did not affect the review or contracting actions taken by the council. First, the court noted that the March deadline for Laid-law’s proposal merely reflected a price-guarantee deadline with one of Laidlaw’s suppliers. Second, the court noted that though Laidlaw’s bid may have had language concerning adjustments for increases in fuel costs, the final contract between the two parties failed to include such a reservation. The court determined that the language therefore did not affect the overall evaluation process.

The record supports the district court’s interpretation of Laidlaw’s proposal. Laidlaw, pursuant to its proposal, needed to purchase an entire fleet of new vehicles. To secure the prices for the new fleet, Laidlaw had to place its order by March 15, 2003. The price of the vehicles was therefore not unknown, as Transit Team implies, but instead was known and fixed until Laidlaw’s vehicle price guarantees expired. This “contingency” therefore had no substantive effect on the overall bidding process.

With respect to gas prices, the record also supports the court’s determination. The proposal’s $1.40-per-gallon price was based upon the prices Laidlaw was then paying for fuel. With this base price, Laidlaw was able to set an overall price for fuel in accordance with the RFP requirements. And though the cover letter to the bid contained language reserving the right to seek an equitable adjustment, the final contract contained no such language. As the price quoted by Laidlaw in the RFP mirrored the final price of the contract, we fail to see how Laidlaw received a “substantial advantage or benefit,” over other bidding.

Because the council’s evaluation was based on a set price, proposed according to the RFP’s requirements, we shall not disturb the district court’s holding on this matter.

V.

Transit Team next asserts that the district court’s findings and conclusions fail to comply with Minn. R. Civ. P. 52. It contends that the court failed to “find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon and direct the entry of the appropriate judgment” as required under the rule. An examination of the rule’s advisory notes, however, reveals that we are not to interpret rule 52 as narrowly as Transit Team suggests.

The purpose of rule 52 is to aid the appellate court by affording it a clear understanding of the ground or basis of the trial court’s decision. Asch v. Housing & Redev. Auth. of St. Paul, 256 Minn. 146, 155, 97 N.W.2d 656, 664-65 (1959). The rule prescribes no specific format, and expressly allows a written opinion or memorandum of decision to stand as findings of fact and conclusions of law. See Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01, 1985 advisory comm. note. This written memorandum or opinion must include a separate statement of the facts, and explain the legal conclusions drawn therefrom. Id. “It is not necessary that the findings of fact be identified in separately numbered paragraphs or that the conclusions of law be similarly stated.” Id.

Here, a two-page court order denied all of Transit Team’s requests for relief, and enjoined the council from issuing any further paratransit service contracts. A ten-page memorandum, attached to and incorporated into the district court’s order, provided a factual and procedural background, then provided analysis under the headings “standards, procedures and guidelines,” “compliance,” and “standing.” It then specifically addressed Transit Team’s arguments concerning compliance with Minn.Stat. § 473.392, and the council’s evaluation process.

Considering the extensive analysis provided by the district court here, we are clearly provided with an understanding of the basis of the court’s decision. As such, the district court adequately followed the guidelines set forth in Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01, and its order will not be reversed on procedural grounds.

VI.

We lastly address the propriety of the district court’s injunction preventing the council from entering into further para-transit contracts until it adopts new standards, procedures, and guidelines pursuant to the process enunciated in Minn.Stat. § 473.392 (2002). Though we share the court’s concerns regarding the inability of any single employee of the council to locate — let alone clearly articulate — the council’s competitive procurement guidelines, we conclude that injunction is an unsuitable means to address these concerns.

The district court’s decision to grant a temporary injunction will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion. Carl Bolander & Sons Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 502 N.W.2d 203, 209 (Minn.1993). Under this standard, a matter shall not be disturbed on appeal unless the district court abused its discretion, exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, or based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law. Almor Corp. v. County of Hennepin, 566 N.W.2d 696, 701 (Minn.1997).

Here, the district court determined that the RTB guidelines were still in effect at the time the council issued its request for proposals, and that the council adhered to these guidelines. Notwithstanding these determinations, the district court enjoined the council from entering into any further contracts until it revised the RTB guidelines. Its stated reason for the injunction is that “there is no department or person [within the council] that can put [the competitive procurement process] all together into a coherent whole.”

We do not disturb the district court’s finding that council employees were unaware of the policies and procedures for the competitive procurement of transit services; there is evidence within the record supporting this finding. However, in light of the district court’s conclusion that proper guidelines are in place, we conclude that an injunction mandating the adoption of new guidelines is an inappropriate remedy. Because the current procurement procedures are effective, comport with Minn. Stat. § 473.493, and are already at the council’s disposal, we conclude that the district court’s injunction was an abuse of discretion.

DECISION

The district court properly determined that Minn.Stat. § 473.392 (2002) applies to the competitive procurement of paratransit contracts, that the Metropolitan Council substantially complied with standards adopted by its predecessor, that those standards remain effective, and that Laid-law substantially followed the procedures delineated in the Request for Proposal. We therefore affirm the district court’s enforcement of the 2003-07 Metro Mobility contract. But because the court abused its discretion in enjoining the Metropolitan Council from issuing future paratransit service contracts, we reverse and dissolve the court’s injunction.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

      . "Paratransit” means all motorized transportation on a regular and continuing basis, excluding regular route transit of passengers, and the delivery of packages in conjunction with that transportation. Minn.Stat. § 174.22, subd. 6 (2002).

      . "Special transportation service" is defined as "motor vehicle transportation provided on a regular basis by a public or private entity that is designed ... to serve individuals who are elderly, handicapped, or disabled and who are unable to use regular means of transportation. ..." Minn.Stat. § 174.29, subd. 1 (2002).

      . The RTB standards in this case state that "[t]his policy will apply to any public transit services competitively awarded or funded through the Regional Transit Board.” (Emphasis added.)