source: Caselaw Access Project

author: ROBERT H. SCHUMACHER, Judge. RANDALL, Judge

license: Public Domain

text:
    In re the Marriage of Patricia L. ROONEY, Petitioner, Respondent, v. Michael T. ROONEY, Respondent, and Christ’s Household of Faith, third-party Respondent, Appellant, and Ramsey County, Intervenor, Respondent.
    No. A03-53.
    Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
    Sept. 16, 2003.

      Joseph F. Schmidt, Minneapolis, MN, for Respondent Patricia L. Rooney.
    Michael T. Rooney, St. Paul, MN, pro se.
    Christopher D. Johnson, Rebecca A. Chaffee, Hazel J. Uy, Best & Flanagan LLP, Minneapolis, MN, for Appellant.
    Susan Gaertner, Ramsey County Attorney, Amy A. Anderson, Assistant County Attorney, St. Paul, MN, for Respondent.
    Considered and decided by SCHUMACHER, Presiding Judge, RANDALL, Judge, and KALITOWSKI, Judge.
   OPINION

ROBERT H. SCHUMACHER, Judge.

Appellant Christ’s Household of Faith (CHOF) challenges the district court’s determination that it is a “payor of funds” under Minn.Stat. § 518.6111 (2002), for child support withholding purposes, contending that the application of that statute to CHOF results in excessive governmental entanglement in CHOF’s religious affairs in violation of the federal and state constitutions. CHOF also challenges the district court’s determinations that it could decide a remand under the statute replacing the statue under which the remand was ordered, that a religious institution providing in-kind benefits to a church member can be a “payor of funds” under Minn.Stat. § 518.6111, that CHOF’s withholding obligation commenced in 1990, and that laches does not apply to this case. CHOF further disputes the amount of the support and maintenance arrears for which it is responsible. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

FACTS

Respondents Patricia L. Rooney and Michael T. Rooney were married in 1964 and became members of CHOF in 1966. The church’s doctrine requires that members devote themselves and any property they have to the church, sacrificing all rights to payment for services given and relinquishing rights to all material possessions. In return, the church supports its members.

In 1987 Patricia Rooney left the church. The parties’ marriage was dissolved in 1988. Patricia Rooney was awarded custody of four of the couple’s minor children, and Michael Rooney (Rooney) was awarded custody of two of the couple’s minor children. It is undisputed that Rooney performed and continues to perform services for CHOF and CHOF-relat-ed entities. In the dissolution judgment, the district court estimated Rooney’s earning capacity to be $24,000. Rooney was ordered to pay monthly child support of $600.52 and monthly spousal maintenance of $250. At the time judgment was entered, Patricia Rooney was receiving welfare assistance from respondent Ramsey County. The judgment imposed on her no obligation to pay support to Rooney.

CHOF is a non-profit corporation operating a number of businesses, including Northstar Services. As a 501(d) corporation, CHOF is required by the IRS to provide each of its members with a partnership K-l tax form. The K-l form represents the division of the gross taxable income of CHOF by the number of its members. The record indicates that Rooney does not receive compensation from CHOF for his services other than room, board, certain in-kind benefits, and a $39.80 biweekly stipend that other CHOF members, even those not working, receive. Rooney’s 1994 K-l tax form shows income of $4,342.

In 1990, the district court ruled that CHOF was Rooney’s “employer” under Minn.Stat. § 518.611 (1990), and ordered CHOF to perform income withholding to pay Rooney’s child support and spousal maintenance obligations. Rooney was in arrears immediately on the $850.52 per month that he was ordered to pay for child support and spousal maintenance. In August 1990, CHOF’s attorney sent the county a letter stating that it could not comply with all aspects of the withholding order, that CHOF and other CHOF-related entities and persons named in the withholding order were not parties to the proceeding but were not objecting to the withholding order. Thereafter, CHOF made some payments on Rooney’s behalf.

In 1991, the district court affirmed a referee’s order directing entry of judgment for support and maintenance arrears against CHOF and other CHOF-related entities and persons. CHOF appealed to this court and argued that it was not “an employer” under MinmStat. § 518.611 (1990). This court reversed and remanded for a determination of whether CHOF had waived its right to an evidentiary hearing, whether CHOF was an employer, and what the total amount of CHOF’s withholding obligations should be. Rooney v. Rooney, 478 N.W.2d 545 (Minn.App.1991) (Rooney I). No action was taken on the remand by the district court, CHOF, the parents, or the county until 2002.

In 1996, Rooney brought a motion to amend his child support and spousal maintenance obligations on the grounds that his circumstances had changed. Patricia Rooney moved for contempt based on claimed arrearages and to increase both child support and spousal maintenance. Rooney’s motion was denied without a determination of whether CHOF was his employer. In 1997, the legislature repealed Minn.Stat. § 518.611 under which the remand had been ordered and replaced it with Minn. Stat. § 518.6111 (Supp.1997).

The evidentiary hearing ordered by this court in 1991 was held in June 2002. The child support magistrate found that CHOF was an employer as well as a “payor of funds” for purposes of Minn.Stat. § 518.6111 (2002), and ordered judgment for arrearages against CHOF back to January 2002, when CHOF was purportedly “joined” as a party to the case. CHOF sought review of this decision by the district court. The district court affirmed the magistrate’s “employer” and “payor-of-funds” rulings, ruled that CHOF was responsible for arrearages dating back to the date it was served with the 1990 order for income withholding, and remanded the matter to the child support magistrate for a calculation of all arrearages. The resulting order found that CHOF, as Rooney’s “employer” and as a “payor of funds” was responsible for $100,976.82 in support ar-rearages, and an additional $38,955.00 in maintenance arrearages. All arrearages of child support and maintenance were calculated based on the amounts ordered in the 1988 dissolution. CHOF appeals.

ISSUES

1. Can the district court exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over a claim against a church for compliance with a child-support withholding statute without violating the federal or state constitution?

2. Did the district court exceed the scope of its remand by addressing whether CHOF was a “payor of funds” under Minn. Stat. § 518.6111 (2002)?

3. Did the district court err in ruling that CHOF was a “payor of funds” under MinmStat. § 518.6111 (2002)?

4. Did the district court abuse its discretion by refusing to invoke laches?

5. Did the district court err in holding that CHOF’s liability for withholding started in 1990?

6. Did the district court err in the calculation of Rooney’s arrears and the amount to be prospectively withheld by CHOF?

ANALYSIS

1. Whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists is a legal question that this court reviews de novo. Kellar v. Von Holtum, 605 N.W.2d 696, 700 (Minn.2000). CHOF argues that the application of the Minnesota child-support withholding statute in this case requires an unconstitutional inquiry into the relationship between the church and its members, and that the district court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over such an inquiry. We disagree, and conclude that the district court may apply Minn.Stat. § 518.6111 (2002), to CHOF without excessive entanglement in CHOF’s religious affairs.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...” U.S. Const. Amend. I. The First Amendment applies to the states by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303, 60 S.Ct. 900, 903, 84 L.Ed. 1213 (1940).

To avoid violating the establishment clause, a state action must (1) have a secular purpose, (2) neither inhibit nor advance religion in its primary effect, and (3) not foster excessive governmental entanglement with religion. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 2111, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971). It is undisputed that this case involves a state action, the imposition on CHOF of the withholding obligation, that has a secular purpose, securing the payment of Rooney’s support and maintenance obligations, that is religiously neutral. At issue in this case is whether imposition of the withholding obligation on CHOF excessively entangles the county with religion where determining the propriety of imposing a withholding obligation requires an examination of Rooney’s relationship with CHOF to determine whether CHOF is an “employer” or “payor of funds” for purposes of Minn. Stat. § 518.6111 (2002). On this record, we conclude that there is no unconstitutional entanglement.

Under the entanglement doctrine, the state must avoid inquiry into the internal decisionmaking and governance of the religious institution. Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595, 602, 99 S.Ct. 3020, 3025, 61 L.Ed.2d 775 (1979). There is no impermissible entanglement, however, when the dispute can be resolved according to “neutral principles of law.” Id. at 602-04, 99 S.Ct. at 3025; see Odenthal v. Minn. Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, 649 N.W.2d 426, 435 (Minn.2002) (applying neutral principles test to negligent counseling claim against member of clergy). These neutral principles of law must be developed and applied without particular regard to religious institutions or doctrine. Jones, 443 U.S. at 602-04, 99 S.Ct. at 3025-26.

Here, the withholding statute is a neutral law applying to all Minnesota employers. The withholding statute articulates a process by which a county may secure child support from an employer. As in J.M. v. Minn. Dist. Council of the Assemblies of God, whether the relationship between CHOF and Rooney makes CHOF subject to Minn.Stat. § 518.6111 (2002), can be determined by religiously neutral factors. J.M. v. Minn. Dist. Council of the Assemblies of God, 658 N.W.2d 589, 595-96 (Minn.App.2003) (applying neutral factors of employment law to determine whether church was pastor’s employer in sexual exploitation suit). CHOF argues that the state should not impose its secular view of CHOF’s relationship on its members. But, as Jones demonstrates, the point of the neutral principles test is to apply a purely secular perspective to a dispute, without inquiring into religious doctrine or practice. Jones, 443 U.S. at 604, 99 S.Ct. at 3026. Because a determination of whether a payor/payee relationship exists between CHOF and Rooney can be accomplished by application of neutral factors and principles of law, we conclude that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction.

The Minnesota Freedom of Conscience Clause provides:

The enumeration of rights in this constitution shall not deny or impair others retained by and inherent in the people. The 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. The Minnesota Constitution affords religious protections broader than those contained in the federal constitution. State v. Hershberger, 462 N.W.2d 393, 397 (Minn.1990). To excuse a law’s imposition on religious freedom under the Minnesota Constitution, the government’s interest must be one of peace, safety or against an act of licentiousness. Murphy v. Murphy, 574 N.W.2d 77, 81 (Minn.App.1998).

Minnesota courts apply a balancing test when analyzing whether a state regulation infringes a right under the freedom of conscience clause of the Minnesota Constitution. Hill-Murray Fed’n of Teachers v. Hill-Murray High Sch., 487 N.W.2d 857, 865 (Minn.1992). The courts ask if (a) the objector’s belief is sincerely held; (b) the state regulation burdens the free exercise of religious beliefs; (c) the state interest in the regulation is compelling; and (d) the state regulation uses the least restrictive means to effectuate a compelling interest. Id. There is no dispute that CHOF’s beliefs are sincerely held. We therefore limit our analysis to the remaining three factors, and conclude that applying Minn.Stat. § 518.6111 (2002), to CHOF does not unduly impose on CHOF’s religious freedom.

CHOF argues that the withholding statute compromises the church’s faith, hinders religious practice and requires the church to act contrary to its doctrine. To determine the burden on CHOF, we must look at whether CHOF is forced to change its religious conduct or philosophy due to imposition of the statute.

In Hill-Murray, the Minnesota Supreme Court found that application of the Labor Relations Act to secular employees of a parochial school did not violate the First Amendment because the terms and conditions of employment were not related to church doctrine and were negotiable. Id. at 866. Furthermore, interference with school authority was minimal, the school retained the power “to require compliance with religious doctrine,” and any person failing to follow the religious standards could be removed. Id. In Odenthal, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that a statute regulating unlicensed mental health care professionals did not force the church to change its religious conduct or philosophy because clergy members retained the right to practice counseling and the church continued to retain the power over the clergy’s compliance with church doctrine. Odenthal, 649 N.W.2d at 442.

Here, CHOF requires that its members relinquish their possessions and most external sources of income. The church then provides support for those members. A consequence of doing so is that it may later be required to meet child-support obligations on behalf of a member. Indeed, the record shows that CHOF has made numerous child-support payments on behalf of Rooney, and continues to do so on behalf of other church members. CHOF does not contend that these payments were a burden on its right to free exercise of religion. CHOF remains free to require its members to give their possessions and income to the church. Further, because CHOF chooses to exist as a non-profit corporation, it is subject to tax and corporate law that may not apply if it existed as a church only. CHOF does not argue that requiring it to follow these laws is an excessive burden. We do not see that applying Minn.Stat. § 518.6111 (2002), is any greater burden on CHOF than requiring it to provide its members with K-l tax forms. Withholding income from Rooney and forwarding this amount to Ramsey County is not a complicated bookkeeping task. We conclude that applying the withholding statute to CHOF does not excessively burden CHOF’s right to exercise its religious beliefs.

As we have noted, the Minnesota Constitution provides greater protections to the practice of religion than the federal constitution. Hershberger, 462 N.W.2d at 397. Thus, if applying Minn. Stat. § 518.6111 to CHOF does not violate the Minnesota Constitution, it also does not violate the lesser protections of the federal constitution. The Free Exercise Clause of the United States Constitution affords the absolute right to hold any religious belief, but it does not absolutely protect religiously-based conduct. Employment Div., Dep’t of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 877-79, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 1599-1600, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990). An individual’s religious beliefs may not excuse a failure to comply with otherwise valid laws concerning conduct subject to state regulation. Id. at 878-79, 110 S.Ct. at 1600. An individual cannot seek First Amendment exemption from a neutral law of general applicability. Id. We have observed that Minn.Stat. § 518.6111 (2002), is applicable to all obli-gors and their employers, without respect to religion. This law applies generally; it is neither directed toward a religious entity, nor does it affect religious entities differently than others in similar economic relationships. We conclude that requiring CHOF to comply with Minn.Stat. § 518.6111 does not infringe on CHOF’s right to free exercise of religion under the federal constitution.

Following this court’s decision in Murphy, the compelling nature of the state’s interest in securing child support from Rooney cannot be challenged. Murphy, 574 N.W.2d at 82 (stating “[w]e hold the state has a compelling interest in assuring parents provide primary support for their children”). CHOF argues that this interest does not extend beyond Rooney to the church. We disagree. As Ramsey County notes, CHOF’s argument would lead to the rather bizarre conclusion that the state has a compelling interest in ordering child support to be paid by an obligor, but not in collecting it. The state has a compelling interest in securing child support from Rooney, and this interest must extend to CHOF, or any other entity that can be required to perform income withholding for Rooney, if that interest is to have any meaning.

CHOF argues that the state did not use the least restrictive means by which to achieve its interest in securing child support for the Rooney children. The least restrictive means of securing child support is for the obligor to pay support voluntarily. Rooney’s court-ordered obligations, however, have not been paid voluntarily. CHOF argues that the county and Patricia Rooney were under an obligation to pursue Michael Rooney’s part-time employers and garnish his social security benefits before the church is approached. But the record indicates that there have been tax intercept and wage withholding actions against Rooney’s part-time employers since 1996. As soon as Ramsey County knew that Rooney was collecting social security, it sent out a withholding notice. Ramsey County has garnished Rooney’s “other employers” and has filed a withholding notice with the Social Security Administration. Rooney’s driver’s license was revoked in an attempt by Ramsey County to compel him to meet his child support obligation. None of these measures has succeeded.

Ramsey County has attempted a number of ways to secure Rooney’s child support payments without success, and on this record pursuing CHOF under Minn.Stat. § 518.6111 (2002), is the least restrictive means remaining available to achieve this goal. Because there is no undue imposition on CHOF’s right to religious freedom, we need not address whether Minn.Stat. § 518.6111 falls into the “peace, safety, or against licentiousness” exception. Murphy, 574 N.W.2d at 81.

2. On remand from this court, the district court found that for purposes of Minn.Stat. § 518.6111, CHOF was both Rooney’s “employer” and a “payor of funds.” Noting that Rooney I remanded for a determination of whether CHOF was Rooney’s “employer,” CHOF argues that the district court exceeded the scope of its remand by addressing whether CHOF was a “payor of funds.” We disagree.

On remand, a district court must “execute [a reviewing court’s] mandate strictly according to its terms” and lacks power to “alter, amend, or modify [that] mandate.” Halverson v. Village of Deerwood, 322 N.W.2d 761, 766 (Minn.1982). There is, however, “a well-recognized exception” to this rule. McClelland v. McClelland, 393 N.W.2d 224, 226 (Minn.App.1986), review denied (Minn. Nov. 17, 1986). Under that exception, courts apply an amended statute on remand if (a) the statute is amended between the time an appellate court remands a case and the time the district court renders its decision on remand; and (b) doing so will not alter rights that had matured or become unconditional, impose new and unanticipated obligations on a party, or work some other injustice. Id. at 226-27.

Rooney I remanded for a determination of whether CHOF was Rooney’s “employer” for purposes of the then-existing Minn. Stat. § 518.611 (1990). Rooney I, 478 N.W.2d at 547. Before the remand was decided, however, the legislature repealed Minn.Stat. § 518.611 and replaced it with Minn.Stat. § 518.6111 (Supp.1997). See 1997 Minn. Laws ch. 203, art. 6, § 93 (repealing Minn.Stat. § 518.611 (1996)); 1997 Minn. Laws ch. 203, art. 6, § 48 (enacting Minn.Stat. § 518.6111 (Supp. 1997)). McClelland’s change-in-the-law prong is satisfied here.

For two reasons, we conclude that McClelland’s lack-of-prejudice prong is also satisfied. First, “[t]here is no vested right in an existing law nor in an action until final judgment has been entered therein.” Holen v. Minneapolis-St. Paul Metro. Airports Comm’n, 250 Minn. 130, 136, 84 N.W.2d 282, 287 (1957) (emphasis in original); see McClelland, 393 N.W.2d at 226-27 (applying Holen in appeal after remand in family-law context). Here, Rooney I remanded the case. The “reconsideration of a case on remand (and a subsequent appeal) is a continuation of the original proceeding.” Mattson v. Underwriters at Lloyds of London, 414 N.W.2d 717, 720 (Minn.1987). No final judgment had been entered, and CHOF had no right to the resolution of the case under Minn. Stat. § 518.611 (1990), and the Rooney I decision based on that law.

Second, while Rooney I remanded for a determination of whether CHOF was Rooney’s “employer,” that remand was ordered under Minn.Stat. § 518.611 (1990), which required an “employer or payor of funds” to withhold the relevant amounts, but defined neither “employer” nor “payor of funds.” Minn.Stat. § 518.611, subd. 2(b) (1990). The 1997 legislation included a definition of “payor of funds” which has not been altered since it was adopted. Compare Minn.Stat. § 518.6111, subd. 1(b) (Supp.1997) (original definition of “payor of funds”) with Minn.Stat. § 518.6111, subd. 1(b) (2002) (current definition of “payor of funds”). Statutory amendments clarifying or defining previously undefined terms may be read into a statute retroactively. Carlson v. Lilyerd, 449 N.W.2d 185, 191 (Minn.App.1989), review denied (Minn. Mar. 8, 1990); see Rural Am. Bank of Greenwald v. Herickhoff 485 N.W.2d 702, 708 (Minn.1992) (stating while “[o]rdinarily” statutes are not applied retroactively, amendments seeking only to clarify “may be applied retroactively” because “the legislature is not changing its mind but is only making clear the legislative intent that was always there”) (citations omitted); Nardini v. Nardini, 414 N.W.2d 184, 196 (Minn.1987) (stating “a clarifying act is to be read into statutory law retrospectively”). Comparing Minn.Stat. § 518.611 (1990), and Minn.Stat. § 518.6111 (2002), we find that for purposes of identifying who is obligated to perform income-withholding, the only relevant difference between the statutes is that Minn.Stat. § 518.611 (1990), lacks the definition of “payor of funds” included in Minn.Stat. § 518.6111 (2002). The results should have been the same under either statute, and the district court’s use of the current statute could not have prejudiced CHOF. The district court did not exceed the scope of its authority on remand by addressing whether CHOF was a “payor of funds” under Minn.Stat. § 518.6111 (2002).

3. CHOF challenges the determination that it is a “payor of funds” for purposes of Minn.Stat. § 518.6111. A “pay- or of funds” is “any person or entity that provides funds to an obligor, including an employer as defined under chapter 24 of the Internal Revenue Code, section 3401(d), an independent contractor, payor of worker’s compensation benefits or unemployment benefits, or a financial institution as defined in section 13B.06.” Minn. Stat. § 518.6111, subd. 1(b). Because the statute refers to “any person or entity” providing funds “including” those listed in the statute, we reject CHOF’s attempt to invoke Minn.Stat. § 645.19 (2002), and the concept of inclusio unius est exdusio al-terius to argue that an entity not listed in the statute cannot be a “payor of funds.”

The Internal Revenue Code provision referenced in the definition of “payor of funds” defines “employer.” It provides in part:

(d) Employer. — For purposes of this chapter, the term “employer” means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the employee of such person, except that—
(1) if the person for whom the individual performs or performed the services does not have control of the payment of the wages for such services, the term “employer” (except for purposes of subsection (a)) means the person having control of the payment of such wages[.]

26 USCA § 3401(d) (West 2000). Under the Code, “wages” include both traditional cash-based pay and “remuneration ... paid in any medium other than cash.” 26 U.S.C.A. § 3401(a) (West 2000). Thus, for purposes of Minn.Stat. § 518.6111, a “pay- or of funds” includes an entity for which a support obligor performs services and which provides the obligor with remuneration, cash-based or otherwise. Here, it is undisputed both that Rooney performs services for CHOF and CHOF-related entities, and that CHOF provides Rooney with a cash-based stipend, room and board, and other in-kind remuneration. The remuneration CHOF provides Rooney qualifies as “wages” under 26 U.S.C.A. § 3401(a), which makes CHOF Rooney’s employer for purposes of 26 U.S.C.A. § 3401(d), which in turn makes CHOF a “payor of funds” for purposes of Minn. Stat. § 518.6111. As a “payor of funds,” CHOF is subject to the statutory withholding requirements.

The district court correctly ruled that CHOF was a “payor of funds” and because being a payor of funds is sufficient to impose a withholding obligation, we need not address the parties’ disputes regarding whether CHOF is Rooney’s “employer” for purposes of Minn.Stat. § 518.6111.

4. Under the doctrine of laches, “when one sits on one’s rights for too long a time, that person’s claim should be es-topped from continuing because it would be inequitable to require the defendant to fight the suit.” Gully v. Gully, 599 N.W.2d 814, 825 (Minn.1999). Whether to apply laches “depends upon the facts of the particular case and rests largely with the discretion of the trial court.” Corah v. Corah, 246 Minn. 350, 357, 75 N.W.2d 465, 469 (1956). Here, CHOF admits that lach-es does not apply to child support obligations, but it argues that the delay in seeking a hearing on remand entitles CHOF to invoke laches against any withholding-related obligation arising out of the remand. We reject this argument because it incorrectly assumes that Patricia Rooney or the county had the primary burden of proceeding on remand.

Generally, “it is the trial court’s duty to insure that a remand hearing is held.” Grilli v. State, 378 N.W.2d 823, 825 (Minn.App.1985). This general rule, however, “may be modified by the particular holding in an individual case[.]” Id. Because the holding of Rooney I does not indicate that it was modifying the presumptively-applicable general rule, the primary duty of holding the hearing on remand was on the district court. When the district court did not set a hearing date, the Rooneys, CHOF, and the county all had numerous procedural options for seeking, and if necessary compelling, the setting of a hearing date. None of them did. As found by the district court in its order remanding the matter to the child support magistrate, there “is plenty of blame to go around for the failure to more promptly initiate remand proceedings and to answer unresolved questions in this case.” The record supports this finding.

5. The district court found that CHOF’s liability for withholding dates back to August 20, 1990. On appeal, CHOF alleges this is wrong because Rooney I reversed the withholding order and no withholding obligation has been imposed since that time. This is incorrect. CHOF appealed an April 25, 1991 district court order affirming the referee’s February 21, 1991 order which, among other things, (a) noted CHOF had been ordered to perform withholding on May 14, 1990, (b) found CHOF had made payments on support but not' maintenance or arrears, (c) awarded mother judgment against CHOF and CHOF-related entities and persons for support and maintenance arrears, and (d) directed that income withholding “will continue ..., pursuant to the [May 14, 1990 order].” On appeal, this court reversed “the trial court’s judgment against [CHOF] as an ex-spouse’s employer for payment of maintenance and child support obligations under Minn.Stat. §§ 518.611 and 518.613.” Rooney I, 478 N.W.2d at 547. Thus, this court reversed the portion of the 1991 judgment against CHOF for arrears. It did not address, reverse, or otherwise review the unap-pealed May 14, 1990 decision requiring CHOF to withhold. It is undisputed that CHOF received the May 14, 1990 withholding order and attempted to comply with it starting no later than August 1990. The district court correctly determined that CHOF’s obligation to perform withholding dated from August 20,1990.

6. CHOF argues that because it gives stipends to its members who are nonworkers as well as members who are workers, the stipend should not be treated the same as amounts earned by child-support obligors working in a more traditional arrangement. But for purposes of child support, income includes “any form of periodic payment[,]” including “unemployment benefits[,]” which (like the CHOF stipends to nonworkers) are paid to nonworkers. Minn.Stat. § 518.54, subd. 6 (2002). CHOF also appears to argue that because much of the remuneration it provides Rooney is in kind, to require it to perform withholding on Rooney’s income, wages, or salary as required by MinmStat. § 518.6111, subd. 5, is to impute income to CHOF and that there is no authority allowing a court to impute income to a payor of funds. Because CHOF’s various in-kind disbursements to Rooney pay or reduce his living expenses, they can be considered when determining his income and ability to pay support. Cf. Minn.Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5(b)(1) (2002) (noting “net income” for support purposes includes “in-kind payments received by the obligor in the course of employment” if those payments “reduce the obligor’s living expenses”); Minn.Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5(c)(1) (2002) (requiring district court to consider “all earnings, income and resources of the parents” when setting support); Darcy v. Darcy, 455 N.W.2d 518, 521 (MinmApp. 1990) (noting breadth of requirement that court consider earnings, income, and resources, and stating “[t]he exact parameters of what may or may not be used to satisfy or set a support obligation have not been fully determined”).

On this record, however, we cannot affirm the calculation of the arrears or the amount of the prospective withholding requirement. In setting the arrears and the withholding requirement, the child support magistrate denied CHOF’s request to conduct additional discovery as well as CHOF’s request for an evidentiary hearing on issues including the value of the services provided by Rooney and the value of the remuneration provided by CHOF. The child support magistrate did so citing First Amendment concerns, the scope of the remand ordered by the district court, the lack of evidence that the value of Rooney’s services, as found to be $24,000 in the dissolution judgment, have changed, the fact that the remand was to enforce rather than modify the existing obligation, and because the child support magistrate believed he lacked jurisdiction to modify spousal maintenance. These concerns are rendered no longer applicable in light of our rejection of CHOF’s First Amendment arguments, the 15 years that have passed since the judgment’s $24,000 valuation of Rooney’s services, our holding that any motion to modify maintenance or support either prospectively or retroactively shall be combined with the remand we order here, and the fact that we are remanding this case to the district court. Therefore, on remand, the parties may (a) conduct reasonable discovery; (b) conduct an evi-dentiary hearing; and (c) combine any motion to modify support or maintenance either prospectively or retroactively with the recalculation of arrears and the prospective withholding obligation.

By notice of review, Patricia Rooney challenges the applicability of the withholding limits in Minn.Stat. § 518.6111, subd. 9(a), which states: “Amounts withheld from an employee’s income must not exceed the maximum permitted under the Consumer Credit Protection Act, title 15 of the United States Code, section 1673(b).” Rooney I holds that the “income withholding procedure is analogous to a garnishment.” Rooney I, 478 N.W.2d at 547. The limits provided in 15 U.S.C.A. § 1673(b) (West 2000) address the amount that can be garnished for child-support purposes. The district court did not err in ruling that the garnishment limits in Minn. Stat. § 518.6111, subd. 9(a), apply here.

DECISION

Resolution of a question of income withholding under Minn.Stat. § 518.6111 (2002), does not violate the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution where application of the statute does not excessively entangle the court with religious doctrine or practices. The application of Minn.Stat. § 518.6111 does not violate the right to free exercise of religion under the United States or Minnesota Constitutions where application of the statute is the least restrictive means available to vindicate the state’s compelling interest in assuring adequate support of children. The district court did not err by deciding the remand under a statute replacing the statute under which the remand was originally ordered, by concluding that a religious institution providing in-kind benefits to a church member can be a “payor of funds” under Minn.Stat. § 518.6111, or in determining the effective date of a withholding obligation under that provision. Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in ruling that, on the unique facts of this case, laches was not applicable. Because the district court’s calculation of arrears and the amount to be withheld was impacted by our resolution of the First Amendment and other questions presented on appeal, we reverse and remand those aspects of the case.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

RANDALL, Judge

(concurring in part and dissenting in part).

I concur with the majority on issues 1, 2, and 3. Minnesota courts have subject matter jurisdiction, I find no violation of either the state or the federal constitution on these facts, and most certainly CHOF can reasonably be construed to be both payor of funds and an employer of Michael Rooney.

I dissent on that part of the opinion addressing the retroactive date to which arrearages for maintenance and child support can be calculated. I conclude the CSM had it correct when he calculated arrearages only back to 2002 when CHOF was finally made a formal party and there was an actual hearing, 11 years after this court had reversed and remanded the case for such a hearing. I also conclude that arrearages, if any, should only be assessed against CHOF. At no time in the course of this case did Michael Rooney ever receive enough disposable cash from CHOF that he personally could ever pay any part of the originally imposed child support and maintenance. All personal judgments against Michael Rooney should be vacated and the eventual arrearages and judgment calculated only against CHOF.

The 1988 dissolution judgment imputed income to Michael T. Rooney by subjectively assigning him a profession and then estimating his earning ability on this “estimated earning ability.” Rooney was ordered to pay both child support for four children in the amount of $600.52 per month and spousal maintenance to Patricia Rooney in the amount of $250.00 per month. At that time, Patricia Rooney was receiving welfare assistance from Ramsey County. She has not received public assistance for years; yet, Michael Rooney’s maintenance obligation has never had a meaningful review.

In February 2002, CHOF was finally joined as a party and finally got the evi-dentiary hearing granted them back in 1991! The evidentiary hearing took place on April 17, 2002. That hearing looked at the issue of whether CHOF was an employer for withholding purposes and did not calculate reasonable child support and spousal maintenance, even though the majority of Patricia Rooney’s minor children, on which the original 1988 order was based, were now emancipated adults! Nor was her spousal maintenance recalculated, even though the figure had been set when she was receiving county assistance and had never been changed, and even though for years, through the present, she has been gainfully employed, and earns far in excess of Michael Rooney.

The child support magistrate found that CHOF was an employer for withholding purposes and ordered judgment for ar-rearages against CHOF back to January of 2002, the point when CHOF was a party and had its evidentiary hearing. CHOF appealed this decision to the district court, not arguing that January of 2002 was an unfair starting date, but rather continued its argument that the religious freedom clauses of the federal and state constitutions deprived courts of jurisdiction over whether they are “an employer” for purposes of employer withholding.

The district court upheld the magistrate’s employment ruling, but then went on to reverse the magistrate’s determination that 2002 was an appropriate starting date to calculate arrearages against CHOF and found, rather, that CHOF was responsible for arrearages dating back to the original 1990 withholding order. The district court remanded the matter back to the magistrate (CSM) for a calculation of all arrearages. That resulted in an order finding CHOF, as an employer of Michael Rooney, responsible for $100,976.82 in child support arrearages and $38,955.00 in spousal maintenance arrearages. All ar-rearages on child support and maintenance were based on the amounts ordered in the 1988 dissolution without regard to, even in the face of, an explicit reference in the record, for the fact that the majority of Michael Rooney’s dependents had become emancipated years past. Patricia Rooney’s present financial circumstances and needs were again not taken into account.

At every step of this case, Michael Rooney is recognized by the courts as being in good faith. In the 1977 order, the court recognized Michael Rooney’s “good faith” in regards to his religious commitment. There is no argument that Michael Rooney’s beliefs are sincerely held.

There is disagreement between the parties regarding whether this court’s 1991 reversal vacated the entire withholding order against CHOF or just the order for arrears or just turned on the need for an evidentiary hearing. CHOF contends that the 1991 district court decision was in error, and since they prevailed on appeal, CHOF argues no present withholding order is in place, and any sporadic payments that CHOF made on behalf of Michael Rooney were voluntary (CHOF argues it does understand the need for obligors to help with their dependent children who have moved outside of “the CHOF family,” and will help out while maintaining their stance that they are not required to).

CHOF is correct that they won on appeal in 1991. The case was reversed and remanded to the district court for answers that have been left unsaid for 11 years.

We remand for the trial court to clearly enunciate answers to the following questions: (1) Did appellant by its conduct waive its right to an evidentiary hearing? (2) If not, is appellant an employer? (3) If so, what is the amount of Rooney’s spousal maintenance and child support obligation?”

Rooney v. Rooney, 478 N.W.2d 545, 547 (Minn.App.1991).

This 1991 order specifically required that CHOF’s status as an employer and the amounts of Rooney’s spousal maintenance and child support obligation be defined. CHOF won the appeal. The impetus was not on CHOF to move forward on the remanded issues. The other parties and/or the district court, sua sponte, were responsible for calendaring, not CHOF. This case sat until January 10, 2002, over a decade later, when CHOF was joined as a party. On June 14, 2002 the order on remand was finally followed when an evi-dentiary hearing was held to determine CHOF’s status as an employer.

In the findings of fact, conclusions of law and order filed June 14, 2002, the child support magistrate found that CHOF’s withholding liability dated back to January 10, 2002, when it was joined as a party. Therefore, arrears would be assigned from that date. I find that conclusion of the CSM was a correct calculation of when arrearages, if any, should commence. I suggest CHOF is responsible for arrears dating back to January 10, 2002, the date at which it was joined as a party to these proceedings.

I would remand to the district court for a reasonable recalculation based on this date. The recalculation should take into account what dependent children, if any, Patricia Rooney had in her physical custody since that time. Patricia Rooney’s financial circumstances, resources, and needs, as of January 2002 should be taken into account. The standards to be applied are the standards applied in all dissolu-tions when one party claims they are entitled to child support and/or spousal maintenance. I conclude the amounts ordered for child support and spousal maintenance stated in the 1988 dissolution were reversed and vacated in 1991. They need now to be validly redetermined. This should happen based on Michael and Patricia Rooney’s 'present circumstances, including income as to both and the financial needs of both.

Arrearages for maintenance and child support against Michael Rooney and CHOF have accumulated while Michael Rooney’s children have reached adulthood, and during the years when Patricia Rooney was employed with income exceeding Michael Rooney’s income. Michael Rooney’s arrearages kept accruing on the original basis! Further, some time between 1988 and the present time, Patricia Rooney obtained gainful employment, and since that time her gross and net earnings have far out stripped that of Michael Rooney.

The CSM’s calculation of child support and spousal maintenance was based on the 1988 determination of support and facts associated with it. As stated, the circumstances for both parties have significantly changed since the original order. At the time of the calculation of spousal maintenance, Patricia Rooney was accepting Ramsey County assistance. The record indicates that recent income for Patricia Rooney of approximately $40,000 far exceeds Michael Rooney’s income. There has been an emancipation of all but one minor child, as noted by the CSM in a footnote to his decision: “In all likelihood, child support is now payable for only one child, D.R., born September 16,1986.”

Right today, and for the last few years, the record is fairly clear that between Michael Rooney’s K-l income and his biweekly stipend, he grosses less than $6,000 per year.

Another point that should be cleared up is Michael Rooney’s driving privileges, as he has in the past tried to supplement his meager income by delivering pizzas. At oral argument, CHOF’s attorney pointed out that Michael Rooney, in years past, had his driver’s license suspended upon the initiative of Ramsey County because of claimed child support arrearages. Counsel stated, and it was not refuted, that recently Michael Rooney did get his driver’s license back, but that to this day Ramsey County has refused to acknowledge the validity of Michael Rooney’s reinstatement. I would direct Ramsey County to acknowledge Michael Rooney’s reinstatement of his driving privileges and to cooperate, if its cooperation is needed, for him to maintain his driving privileges.

In brief, the entire problem with this case as to both child support and maintenance, and so-called arrearages against CHOF and arrearages against Michael Rooney is that following this court’s reversal in 1991, no one took the initiative to follow this court’s directive and have a judicial determination as to whether CHOF was an employer/payor of funds and what was a reasonable amount of child support and maintenance from Michael Rooney to have to pay. None of this happened until 2002, and, even then, no accurate determination of Michael Rooney’s reasonable needs and financial resources was made and no accurate determination of Patricia Rooney’s financial resources and reasonable needs was made. All calculated child support and maintenance obligations and arrearages go back 15 years to when Patricia Rooney had four dependent children living with her and was on public assistance. That has not been true for several years. Yet, Michael Rooney never had an honest recalculation. A reasonable recalculation has to happen now before any enforceable judgment can be ordered, and that should be against CHOF, not against Michael Rooney.

This is not a case where an obligor making a substantial income quit that job and became voluntarily underemployed because he knew a dissolution was coming. These facts are exactly the reverse. Michael Rooney and Patricia Rooney, with their children, entered into a voluntary association with CHOF for at least 16 years. Patricia Rooney knew exactly that the financial circumstances were, as an understatement, extremely modest. Working for a religious organization is something like marriage, “for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer.” She certainly had a right to leave CHOF, but neither she nor Ramsey County can now look backward and state that “Michael Rooney should have been making more and was worth more than that to CHOF,” and “since he was ‘worth more’ to CHOF, child support and maintenance should be based on some hypothetical figure.”

This situation is not that uncommon. Dedicated young physicians and lawyers, men and women, can shun the “big money” and dedicate part of their careers (or in some laudable instances, their entire careers) to working at extremely low wages for a various assortment of storefront clinics or law offices. For instance, there is the Indian Health Service, Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services (SMRLS), neighborhood justice center, Legal Aid clinics, etc. When that person and their spouse, voluntarily enter into that arrangement for a number of years and have their minor children during that arrangement, that is a mutual choice of the parents. The one getting divorced and leaving later cannot be heard to say that child support and maintenance should be based “on what the obligor could have gotten had he or she taken a job with a large law firm or private for-profit clinic.”

I concur in part, dissent in part, and would vacate any and all arrearages, whether for maintenance or for child support against Michael Rooney personally, and assess fairly calculated arrearages against CHOF going back only to 2002.

      . As exemplified by the child support magistrate’s February 2002 order addressing the "joinder” of CHOF as a party to this proceeding, the record, the parties, and the court are less than clear about when CHOF became a party to these proceedings. It is clear however, that any objection CHOF had to the court exercising personal jurisdiction over it was waived when, in August 1990, its attorney sent a letter to the county stating that complying with all aspects of the May 1990 withholding order was not possible, that CHOF and others named in the withholding order were not parties to the proceeding, but not objecting to the existence of the withholding obligation and expressing CHOF's “interest in fully complying with the Court's order.” See Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.08 (addressing waiver of objection to lack of personal jurisdiction); Patterson v. Wu Family Corp., 608 N.W.2d 863, 867-68 (Minn.2000) (same). It was CHOF's lack of full compliance with the withholding order that prompted the 1991 proceedings and the appeal in Rooney I, which resulted in the remand from which this appeal is taken. "The reconsideration of a case on remand (and a subsequent appeal) is a continuation of the original proceeding.” Mattson v. Underwriters at Lloyds of London, 414 N.W.2d 717, 720 (Minn.1987). Because CHOF has been a party to this proceeding (at least for withholding purposes) since before the first appeal was taken, there was no need to "join” CHOF on remand.

      . In the May 1997 order the district court stated:
      Respondent’s good faith pursuance of his religion is not a question. He is committed to and does follow the precepts of his beliefs. The assets which he owns are minimal and of only nominal value, ie. the family’s clothing, a few pieces of furniture, a TV, a microwave and other small appliances which respondent values at having a total, aggregate value of not more than $500.00. Respondent has no car, no savings, no checking, no investments, no retirement or pension. He is totally dependent upon the CHOF for his continued existence. Respondent does, however, have the ability to earn income but by reason of his religious commitment does not directly earn income.

      . In the January 21, 2003 order, the magistrate acknowledged this sincerely held belief when he refused to grant an evidentiary hearing to re-determine the amount paid by CHOF stating such an examination would "require the close examination of details, mundane and sacred, of the relationship between a man and his church.”


author: G. BARRY ANDERSON, Judge.

text:
    Randy John SCHUG, Appellant, v. NINE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SIXTEEN DOLLARS AND FIFTY CENTS IN U.S. CURRENCY, Respondent, and Michael A. Fahey, Carver County Attorney, Respondent, v. 1994 Red Chevrolet K-1500 PK, VIN 2GCEKK19K2R1128848, Vehicle License Plate No. FFT 630, Respondent.
    No. A03-198.
    Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
    Sept. 23, 2003.

      Thomas A. Volk, Chaska, MN, for appellant.
    Michael A. Fahey, Carver County Attorney, Robert G. Hendricks, Assistant County Attorney, Carver County Justice Center, Carver County Attorney’s Office, Chaska, MN, for respondent.
    Considered and decided by HARTEN, Presiding Judge, G. BARRY ANDERSON, Judge, and WRIGHT, Judge.
   OPINION

G. BARRY ANDERSON, Judge.

Appellant challenges the district court’s order directing that the proceeds from an insurance policy covering his vehicle be forfeited. Appellant argues that (1) Minnesota law does not allow for the forfeiture of insurance proceeds and (2) that the forfeiture violates his constitutional right against double jeopardy because it is punitive in nature and does not serve any of the remedial goals of the forfeiture statute. We affirm.

FACTS

On December 24, 2001, appellant Randy John Schug was involved in a two-car accident. The accident occurred after the vehicle appellant was driving crossed the centerline and struck an oncoming vehicle. Some of the occupants of the other vehicle were injured as a result of this accident. Both cars involved in the accident were damaged, but appellant’s car was a total loss.

A blood test conducted after the accident revealed that appellant had a blood-alcohol content (BAC) of .20. A later test revealed a BAC of .16. In January 2002 the state notified appellant’s automobile insurance earner that the state had an interest in the settlement of any property-damage claim filed by appellant stemming from the December 24, 2001, accident. The state advised the insurer not to release any insurance proceeds until the district court ordered the insurance carrier to do so.

The state filed a civil complaint pursuant to Minn.Stat. §§ 169A.63, 609.5312 (2000), against appellant’s vehicle, seeking the title to the vehicle and any insurance proceeds resulting from the accident. On September 10, 2002, appellant and the state entered into a plea agreement and appellant pleaded guilty to criminal vehicular operation in violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.21, subd. 2a (2)0) (2002).

The civil files were consolidated in September 2002 and, because the parties did not dispute the facts, the matter was argued by memorandum only. The district court concluded that the insurance settlement was subject to forfeiture and ordered the settlement be paid to the state. This appeal followed.

ISSUES
I. Did the district court err in concluding that an automobile-insurance settlement represents the proceeds of a criminal activity and is therefore subject to forfeiture?
II. Does the forfeiture of motor vehicle property-damage-insurance proceeds violate the constitutional protections against double jeopardy?

ANALYSIS

I

Minnesota’s forfeiture law provides that “all money and other property, real and personal, that represent proceeds of a designated offense * * * are subject to forfeiture. Minn.Stat. § 609.5312, subd. 1 (2002). Because appellant was convicted of criminal vehicular operation which is a designated offense under Minn.Stat. § 609.531, subd. 1(f)(2) (2002), the central issue here is whether the insurance-settlement payment qualifies as a proceed of a crime under Minn.Stat. § 609.5312.

The construction and applicability of a statute are questions of law, reviewed de novo. Brookfield Trade Ctr. v. County of Ramsey, 584 N.W.2d 390, 393 (Minn.1998); O’Malley v. Ulland Bros., 549 N.W.2d 889, 892 (Minn.1996). Courts must first look to the language of the statute to determine its meaning and “ascertain and effectuate the intent of the legislature.” Minn.Stat. § 645.16 (2002). If the meaning of a statute is plain and unambiguous on its face, judicial construction is neither necessary nor proper. Occhino v. Grover, 640 N.W.2d 357, 359 (Minn.App.2002), review denied (Minn. May 28, 2002). “But courts are not to give effect to the plain meaning of the statute if it produces absurd results or it is clearly at odds with the policy of the legislation as a whole.” Swenson v. Waseca Mut. Ins. Co., 653 N.W.2d 794, 797 (Minn.App.2002), review denied (Minn. Feb 26, 2003).

In Minnesota, a forfeiture claim is a civil in rem action. Minn.Stat. 609.531, subd. 6a. The property’s status as defendant is “based on the legal fiction that it is the inanimate object itself, not the possessor or owner, that is guilty of wrongdoing.” Riley v. 1987 Station Wagon, 650 N.W.2d 441, 443 (Minn.2002) (citing Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602, 615-17, 113 S.Ct. 2801, 2808-09, 125 L.Ed.2d 488 (1993). Moreover, the legislature has provided that the proceeds generated from a designated offense may be forfeited despite the fact that the money is not itself “guilty” of the crime. Minn.Stat. 609.5312, subd. 1.

This state’s forfeiture laws are remedial in nature and are to be construed liberally. Minn.Stat. § 609.531, subd. la (2000). But the United States Supreme Court has stated that “forfeiture generally and statutory in rem forfeiture in particular historically have been understood, at least in part, as punishment.” Austin, 509 U.S. at 618, 113 S.Ct. at 2810. Accordingly, these laws are disfavored and will only be enforced when the claim is “within both letter and spirit of the law.” Id. (quoting United States v. One 1936 Model Ford V-8 De Luxe Coach, Motor No. 18-3306511, 307 U.S. 219, 226, 59 S.Ct. 861, 865, 83 L.Ed. 1249 (1939)). Because of the punitive and disfavored nature of the forfeiture laws this court is to “strictly construe its language and resolve any doubt in favor of the party challenging it.” Id.

No Minnesota appellate court has addressed the issue of whether insurance proceeds may be seized under the forfeiture statutes. But there are cases that provide guidance on this issue.

For example, in Riley, the supreme court determined that a conviction for conspiracy to commit first degree murder did not justify a vehicle forfeiture because there was an insufficient nexus between the vehicle and the crime. Id. at 445. The state had argued that because the appellant used the vehicle to drive to a meeting with a police informant where the conspiracy was discussed and to transport tools that would be used to break into the intended victims’ home, the vehicle had been used in furtherance of the conspiracy to commit a murder. Id. at 442.

The Riley court, reasoning that because the appellant had driven to the victims’ home in a police informant’s vehicle, concluded that the appellants vehicle had not played a critical role in the conspiracy. Id. at 445. The supreme court observed that automobiles are an essential part of our society and that there is little activity that takes place that is not in some way “facilitated” by the use of a car. Id. But there must be a showing that there is “a direct and substantial connection between the vehicle being forfeited and the designated offense” in order to satisfy the statutory requirement that a vehicle was used to “facilitate” a crime. Minn.Stat. § 609.5312, subd. 1; Riley, 650 N.W.2d at 445. Based on the courts conclusion that the defendants vehicle “was neither a ‘tool’ nor an ‘instrument’ of the conspiracy,” the Riley court ruled the vehicle was not subject to forfeiture. Id.

Although State v. Rosenfeld, 540 N.W.2d 915 (Minn.App.1995) presents very different facts from the present case, it is nonetheless instructive. In Rosenfeld, this court concluded that a convicted drug dealer must forfeit the proceeds of his drug sales. Id. at 923. We concluded that allowing “criminals who had most successfully parlayed their drug related incomes into substantial assets to retain those assets would frustrate a remedial purpose of the provision permitting forfeiture of the proceeds of illegal activity.” Id. at 922 (quoting U.S. v. Borromeo, 995 F.2d 23, 27 (4th Cir.1993)). This court went on to hold that no person has a “reasonable expectation” that the law will allow them to keep proceeds gained from illegal activity. Id.

Based on this legal topography, we conclude the district courts decision to require forfeiture of the insurance proceeds .was proper. Unlike Riley, there is a direct connection between appellant’s criminal conduct and the automobile. Appellants vehicle provided the means for appellant to break the law. And unlike Riley, where the vehicle was one car removed from the criminal conduct, appellants car was directly involved in the accident and injuries that led to appellant’s conviction.

While appellant concedes that his car was involved in the accident and would most likely be subject to forfeiture, he argues his insurance settlement played no role in the accident and should not be forfeited. But the state argues convincingly that to allow appellant to keep the insurance settlement would thwart the purpose of the forfeiture law: insuring that people convicted of a crime are not allowed to retain the money generated by their illegal conduct. Borromeo, 995 F.2d at 27.

It is true that the forfeiture laws are based on the premise the property in question committed the offense and thus can be seized. Riley, 650 N.W.2d at 443. Further complicating our analysis is that the legislature has not defined the term “proceeds” in connection with the forfeiture statutes. But the legislature has made clear that the forfeiture laws are not to be limited simply to the instrumentalities of a criminal enterprise but also to the “proceeds” generated by these activities. Minn. Stat § 609.5312, subd. 1. Additionally the legislature has deemed that property can be forfeited if the forfeiture helps to “reduce the economic incentive to engage in criminal enterprise” or “increase the pecuniary loss resulting from the detection of criminal activity.” MinmStat. § 609.531, subd. la (3), (4).

As appellant admits, had the car not been completely destroyed by his criminal conduct, it would have been forfeitable. And there seems little doubt that denying appellant the insurance payment compensating for the loss of the vehicle destroyed as a result of his wrongful conduct dramatically increases the pecuniary loss resulting from his criminal behavior. Were we to hold, as appellant urges, that the vehicle is subject to forfeiture but the insurance proceeds are not, we would create the perverse economic incentive to engage in such dangerous driving that the vehicle might be destroyed rather than forfeited. In essence appellant asks us to allow him to keep the money that represents the value of his destroyed vehicle as a reward for his criminally dangerous and harmful actions.

A far more sensible reading of the statute at issue here is that the property-damage-insurance payment is subject to forfeiture where the vehicle is also subject to forfeiture. We affirm the district court on this issue.

II

Appellant next argues that the forfeiture of his insurance settlement amounts to a violation of his constitutional protection against double jeopardy. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no person shall “be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” U.S. Const, amend. V. The Minnesota Constitution similarly provides that “no person shall be put twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.” Minn. Const, art. I, § 7. Generally, absent a compelling reason, Minnesota courts apply federal interpretations to a state constitutional provision when the federal and state constitutional provisions are nearly identical. City of Pine Springs v. One 1992 Harley Davidson, 555 N.W.2d 749, 752 (Minn.App.1996). “[A] criminal adjudication followed by a civil forfeiture, or vice versa, violates double jeopardy provisions only if the forfeiture constitutes ‘punishment.’ ” Id. at 750.

The U.S. Supreme Court has established a two-prong test for determining whether an in rem civil forfeiture is punishment for double jeopardy purposes. In United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267, 116 S.Ct. 2135, 135 L.Ed.2d 549 (1996), the high court held that first the reviewing court must examine the governing statute to determine whether the legislative body intended the forfeiture proceedings to be criminal and punitive or civil and remedial. Ursery, 518 U.S. at 288, 116 S.Ct. at 2147. Next, the court must consider whether the party challenging the statute has shown by the clearest proof that the forfeiture is so punitive in fact that “‘it may not legitimately be viewed as civil in nature.’ ” Id. (quoting United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354, 366, 104 S.Ct. 1099, 1107, 79 L.Ed.2d 361 (1984)). A civil in rem forfeiture that has some punitive aspects will not necessarily violate double jeopardy provisions if it still serves important non-punitive goals. Ursery, 518 U.S. at 290, 116 S.Ct. at 2148.

The Riley court held that Minn.Stat. § 609.3512 is remedial in nature. Riley, 650 N.W.2d at 443. Similarly, Minnesota courts have repeatedly held that the legislature intended vehicle forfeiture under Minn.Stat. § 169.1217 to serve the important, non-punitive, remedial goal of enhancing public safety by separating repeat intoxicated drivers from the instrumentality used to commit criminal actions. Lukkason v. 1993 Chevrolet Extended Cab Pickup, 590 N.W.2d 803, 806 (Minn.App.1999); review denied (Minn. May 18, 1999); see also City of New Hope v.1986 Mazda 626, 546 N.W.2d 300, 303-04 (Minn.App.1996); One 1992 Harley Davidson, 555 N.W.2d at 751.

Because it is well established that the purpose of this statute is primarily remedial, the sole question for this analysis is whether the record supports appellant’s claim that the forfeiture of the insurance settlement is unduly punitive. We must, therefore, determine whether the record contains the requisite “clearest proof’ that the effect of the statute is “so punitive so as to negate the legislatures intent to establish a civil, remedial mechanism.” One 1992 Harley Davidson, 555 N.W.2d at 751.

In Lukkason, we concluded that the forfeiture of a vehicle with value of $11,584.92, nearly two thousand dollars more than the proceeds at issue here, was not so excessively punitive to render the proceeding criminal rather than civil. 590 N.W.2d at 807-08. While Lukkason dealt with the forfeiture of a vehicle rather than the insurance proceeds, the principle underlying Lukkason applies. Because the insurance proceeds represent the fair-market value of appellants destroyed vehicle, forfeiture of this money is not unduly punitive.

DECISION

Because of the remedial nature of Minnesota’s forfeiture law, property-damage-insurance proceeds are properly subject to forfeiture proceedings where the motor vehicle, if it had not been totally destroyed, would have otherwise been subject to forfeiture. And because the purpose of the forfeiture provisions of Minnesota law are remedial in nature, the forfeiture of insurance proceeds, under these facts, does not violate either the Minnesota or United States constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy.

Affirmed.

      . It is well settled law that, under the proper statutory circumstances, a conviction for driving under the influence results in vehicle forfeiture. Lukkason v.1993 Chevrolet Extended Cab Pickup, 590 N.W.2d 803 (Minn.App.1999), review denied (Minn. May 18, 1999); City of Pine Springs v. One 1992 Harley Davidson, 555 N.W.2d 749 (Minn.App.1996); City of New Hope v.1986 Mazda 626, 546 N.W.2d 300 (Minn.App.1996).

      . Minn.Stat. § 169.1217 has since been re-codified as Minn.Stat. § 169A.63.


author: HUDSON, Judge. FORSBERG, Judge

text:
    STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Alan George OLHAUSEN, Jr., Appellant.
    No. C1-02-1361.
    Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
    Sept. 30, 2003.

      Mike Hatch, Attorney General, John B. Galus, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, MN; and L. Douglas Storey, Cottonwood County Attorney, Windom, MN, for respondent.
    Daniel S. Adkins, Richard Sand, Richard Sand & Associates, P.A., St. Paul, MN, for appellant.
    Considered and decided by RANDALL, Presiding Judge; HUDSON, Judge; and FORSBERG, Judge.
   OPINION

HUDSON, Judge.

Appellant Alan George Olhausen, Jr. challenges his conviction of first-degree controlled substance crime arguing that the state failed to sufficiently identify the controlled substance or establish its weight. Because we conclude the evidence was legally insufficient to support appellant’s conviction, we reverse the conviction of first-degree controlled substance crime and remand to the trial court for sentencing on the remaining convictions.

FACTS

On December 12, 2000, Troy Appel, an investigator with the Worthington Police Department, received information from a confidential informant that appellant Alan George Olhausen, Jr., was interested in selling two pounds of methamphetamine. Appel gave this information to Robert Nance, a special agent with the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. Acting in an undercover capacity, Agent Nance telephoned appellant and arranged to purchase a pound of methamphetamine at a cost of $10,000. Appellant informed Nance that the methamphetamine was in the trunk of a car belonging to his friend May Chantharath, and that the car was parked at the Toro plant in Windom. Appellant and Nance agreed to meet at the Cenex/AmPride gas station in Worthing-ton, at 7:00 p.m. that evening. Prior to meeting appellant, Nance was equipped with an electronic listening device and provided with $10,000, a so-called “flash roll.” After arriving at the gas station in Wor-thington, Agent Nance suggested that he follow appellant in his (Nance’s) car to the parking lot of the Toro plant in Windom.

Upon arriving at the Toro plant parking lot, Nance got in appellant’s vehicle, and appellant attempted to contact Chanthar-ath using Nance’s cell phone. Agent Nance overheard appellant state, “Hey, man, I am outside your work. Swing out when you can.” Appellant then produced a clear plastic baggie which contained, by Nance’s estimate, approximately three- and-one-half grams of a yellow, chunky substance; Nance believed it to be an “eight-ball” of methamphetamine. Nance understood that appellant was showing him a sample of the methamphetamine agent Nance was about to purchase. Agent Nance never actually took possession of the plastic baggie. Appellant again attempted to contact Chantharath using Nance’s cell phone. Still unable to contact Chantharath, appellant left Nance’s cell phone number in a voice message.

Agent Nance told appellant that he would not give him the $10,000 until he saw the methamphetamine. At that point, Nance returned to his vehicle and followed appellant to another area of the parking lot. Nance parked his car immediately next to appellant’s car. Nance then received a call from a special agent monitoring the situation advising him that Chan-tharath had left the Toro plant and was sitting in his car. Chantharath called Nance’s cell phone and requested to speak with appellant. Agent Nance reached through his car window and handed the cell phone to appellant. During the conversation, Nance overheard appellant state, “Hello, hey I’m here. I got the money for one, and the other guy will be here later.” Nance later heard appellant state, “Ten for one,” followed by “You are in your car?” and “He wants to look at it.” Nance testified that he understood the “ten for one” comment to mean $10,000 for one pound of methamphetamine.

Next, Agent Nance saw appellant drive over to Chantharath’s car, but he never saw appellant actually enter Chantharath’s vehicle because appellant’s car was blocking his (Nance’s) view. Several minutes later appellant returned to his vehicle. Because appellant expressed uneasiness about completing the transaction in the Toro parking lot, Nance suggested that they go to the nearby Hy Vee parking lot; appellant agreed. Once there, Nance entered appellant’s vehicle and questioned him about the packaging of the alleged methamphetamine. Appellant indicated, “That’s how it is coming.” Appellant then ripped open a corner of the package and stated, “See, it is covered in cinnamon and mustard.”

Agent Nance testified that the package was heat-sealed and about 10 inches by 16 inches. Inside the package was a hard cylinder or “sausage-shaped” object that was about eight inches in length by three to four inches in diameter and was a dark color. Nance testified that he handled the package and that it had a slimy or greasy covering. Nance noted that he smelled cinnamon but not mustard. Agent Nance testified that the purpose of the cinnamon or mustard coating was to mask the scent [of the methamphetamine] from drug-sniffing dogs. Nance also testified that methamphetamine has a very definite odor and the first thing he does while working undercover is “to take a smell.” Nance observed further that the appearance of methamphetamine could be from off-white to dark brown to yellow to pink to red. Agent Nance testified at trial that he had done three to four hundred undercover drug buys and had seen methamphetamine many times before. Nance testified that he was convinced the substance shown to him by appellant was methamphetamine. However, Nance also testified that he could not say with 100% certainty that the packaged substance was methamphetamine.

After looking at the package, Nance indicated to appellant that he was going to retrieve the money. Once he exited appellant’s vehicle, Nance signaled to the surveillance officers to move in and arrest appellant. Nance did not have the alleged methamphetamine in his possession. As the surveillance officers approached appellant’s vehicle in unmarked squad cars, appellant accelerated forward, damaging a police vehicle, and drove off. Several officers gave chase, but appellant managed to escape. While driving, appellant threw the alleged methamphetamine out the window of his vehicle.

Chantharath was arrested at the scene and told Agent Nance that he had provided appellant with a pound of methamphetamine to sell to Nance. Appellant was arrested nine days later and charged with three counts of first-degree controlled substance crime: aiding and abetting the sale of ten or more grams of a mixture containing methamphetamine in violation of Minn. Stat. §§ 152.021, subds. 1(1) and 3, and 609.05 (2000); conspiracy to sell ten or more grams of a mixture containing methamphetamine in violation of Minn.Stat. §§ 152.021, subds. 1 and 3, and 152.096 (2000); possession of 25 or more grams of a mixture containing methamphetamine in violation of Minn.Stat. § 152.021, subds. 2(1) and 3 (2000). Appellant was also charged with fleeing a peace officer in a motor vehicle in violation of Minn. § 609.487, subd. 3 (2000). In an amended complaint, appellant was also charged with one count of first-degree criminal damage to property in violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.595, subds. 1(1), (3) (2000). Agent Nance interviewed appellant, who admitted that the substance he tried to sell Nance was methamphetamine he obtained from Chantharath. In an apparent attempt to obtain leniency, appellant contacted Nance on December 31, 2000, and offered to take him to the location where appellant had thrown the alleged methamphetamine out of his vehicle. Agent Nance, along with appellant, searched the area but found nothing. Approximately one week later, Nance again searched the location, but again without success. The alleged methamphetamine was never recovered.

At the omnibus hearing on June 11, 2001, appellant moved the trial court for an order dismissing the charges for lack of probable cause because the alleged methamphetamine was not actually in evidence and had therefore never been scientifically tested or weighed. Appellant’s motion was denied. On February 20 and 21, 2002, a jury trial was held. At the close of trial, appellant’s motion for directed verdict was denied, and the matter was submitted to the jury. The jury found appellant guilty of all charges. Appellant was sentenced on the possession count and for fleeing a police officer. This appeal follows.

ISSUE

Was the evidence legally sufficient to convict appellant of first-degree controlled substance crime when the alleged methamphetamine was never recovered and therefore never scientifically tested or weighed?

ANALYSIS

Appellant argues that the trial court erred by not dismissing the complaint for lack of probable cause because the alleged methamphetamine was never recovered, and therefore the state failed to produce scientific evidence demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt the identity and the weight of the methamphetamine he was charged with possessing and selling. A claim that the trial court erred in failing to dismiss a complaint for lack of probable cause made after there has been a trial and a conviction is construed as a claim that the evidence was insufficient to convict. See State v. Holmberg, 527 N.W.2d 100, 103 (Minn.App.1995) (stating that appellant’s probable cause argument was not barred but was irrelevant), review denied (Minn. Mar. 21, 1995). This is because the evidentiary standard for a conviction is much higher than that for probable cause. See, e.g., State ex rel. Hastings v. Bailey, 263 Minn. 261, 266, 116 N.W.2d 548, 551 (1962) (noting that at a preliminary hearing, the state need not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt). Accordingly, we review appellant’s appeal as a sufficiency-of-the-evidenee challenge.

In considering a claim of insufficient evidence, this court’s review is limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, is sufficient to allow the jurors to reach the verdict that they did. State v. Webb, 440 N.W.2d 426, 430 (Minn.1989). We must assume the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary. State v. Moore, 438 N.W.2d 101, 108 (Minn.1989). We will not disturb the verdict if the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude the defendant was guilty of the charged offense. State, v. Alton, 432 N.W.2d 754, 756 (Minn.1988).

I. Identity of the controlled substance

A person is guilty of a controlled substance crime in the first degree if the person unlawfully possesses one or more mixtures of a weight of 25 grams or more containing cocaine, heroin, or methamphetamine. Minn.Stat. § 152.021, subd. 2(1) (2000). Appellant argues that the evidence is insufficient to convict him of first-degree controlled substance crime because the alleged methamphetamine necessary for a conviction was not sufficiently identified or weighed. The state counters that the evidence was sufficient to find that appellant possessed more than 25 grams of methamphetamine because of appellant’s contemporaneous representations to Agent Nance and because of appellant’s confession that the substance he gave to Nance was one pound of methamphetamine. We disagree.

Under Minnesota law, proof of the actual identity of the controlled substance is required. State v. Vail, 274 N.W.2d 127, 134 (Minn.1979); State v. Dick, 253 N.W.2d 277, 279 (Minn.1977). No minimum evidentiary requirements have been prescribed in identification cases and the sufficiency of the evidence is examined on a case-by-case basis. Vail, 274 N.W.2d at 134. Here, the “sausage-shaped” package containing the alleged methamphetamine was never recovered and therefore not scientifically tested by the state to ensure that the package appellant offered to sell Nance in fact contained methamphetamine. Our analysis, however, does not end here because it is permissible to ascertain the identity of a controlled substance from nonscientific evidence. See Vail, 274 N.W.2d at 137.

The state’s nonscientific evidence is appellant’s contemporaneous representations to Agent Nance. During the undercover operation, appellant made several representations to Nance that suggested the “sausage-shaped” package contained methamphetamine. Appellant informed Nance that the alleged methamphetamine was in the trunk of a car belonging to Chanthar-ath. Appellant also showed Nance a clear plastic baggie containing a yellowish-brown substance, which Nance understood to be a sample of the methamphetamine he was about to purchase. Agent Nance overheard appellant say in a call to Chan-tharath, “Ten for one,” which Nance testified he understood to mean $10,000 for one pound of methamphetamine. Further, when appellant showed Nance the package after he had retrieved it from the trunk of Chantharath’s car, appellant stated to Nance, “See, it is covered in cinnamon and mustard,” which Agent Nance testified is commonly done to mask the scent of methamphetamine.

We acknowledge that this is compelling evidence and presents a strong inference that the “sausage-shaped” package in fact contained methamphetamine. But appellant’s representations to Agent Nance are supported only by appellant’s belief that the package contained methamphetamine. The supreme court, however, has previously held that a defendant’s belief in an identification case is insufficient evidence to support a determination of guilt. See Vail, 274 N.W.2d at 133-34 (statement of defendant quoted by the state’s witness identifying the product as not only marijuana but “Mexican-grade” marijuana was only an assertion of defendant’s belief). We also note that there is no evidence in the record, for example, that appellant prepared the package that was ultimately presented to Nance as methamphetamine and therefore knew first-hand its contents. Appellant’s first exposure to the package occurred when he retrieved the package from the trunk of Chantharath’s car at the scene of the undercover drug buy.

Furthermore, we decline to rely on appellant’s belief that methamphetamine was contained in the package because it is not uncommon for drug dealers to substitute placebos in place of the real drug. This practice is common enough to warrant its own criminal statute. See Minn. Stat. § 152.097 (2002) (sale of simulated controlled substance). Therefore, we conclude that appellant’s representations to Agent Nance that the “sausage-shaped” package contained methamphetamine are supported only by appellant’s belief that the package contained methamphetamine, and that appellant’s belief is legally insufficient to identify the contents of the package as methamphetamine.

The state also notes that Agent Nance has been on hundreds of undercover drug buys and testified that he has seen methamphetamine many times and was convinced that the package contained methamphetamine. He testified that he held the package in his hand and the package had a slimy or greasy feel consistent with methamphetamine packaging. Nance also testified that after appellant ripped a corner of the package open he saw a brown substance he believed to be methamphetamine and smelled cinnamon, but not the distinctive ammonia odor he normally relies on to identify methamphetamine. But there is no evidence in the record that Nance tasted the package contents, attempted to get a closer look at what was inside the package, or did any kind of at-the-scene testing to verify the package contained methamphetamine. Nance also testified that he could not be 100% certain that the package contained methamphetamine. We cannot say that Nance’s observations establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the contents of the “sausage-shaped” package was in fact methamphetamine.

The state next argues that appellant’s confession sufficiently supports his conviction. Following his arrest, while being interviewed by Agent Nance, appellant admitted that the package he offered to sell Nance contained methamphetamine. The states relies on Minn.Stat. § 634.03 (2000) for the proposition that a confession by a defendant is sufficient to warrant a conviction if the evidence establishes that the offense charged has been committed. The statute’s purpose is to discourage co-ercively acquired' confessions and to make the admission reliable. State v. Brant, 436 N.W.2d 468, 470 (Minn.App.1989). It is not required that each element of the offense be independently corroborated to meet the statute’s standard. Id. at 471. All the statute requires is independent evidence of attendant facts or circumstances from which a jury may infer the trustworthiness of the confession. Id.

The state contends it has met this standard because appellant’s confession was corroborated by Chantharath’s admission to Nance that he furnished appellant a pound of methamphetamine to use in the undercover drug buy. But as we have already discussed, a person’s belief that the controlled substance is what he represents it to be, without more, is legally insufficient evidence to identify the drug in an identification case. Cf. Dick, 253 N.W.2d at 279 (holding evidence justified jury’s conclusion that the substance was marijuana where state criminalist examined the substance and testified that it was marijuana, the undercover officer testified the substance gave off an odor which he concluded was the odor of burning marijuana, and the defendant represented the substance to be marijuana).

Here, the record indicates that Chantharath obtained the alleged methamphetamine from someone else and later made the package available to appellant to facilitate the sale to Agent Nance. Like appellant’s representation, Chantharath’s admission that the package he provided to appellant contained methamphetamine is supported only by Chantharath’s belief that what he received from his source was in fact methamphetamine. There is no evidence in the record, however, that Chantharath independently tested the sub-stance obtained from his source, or that testing was performed in his presence to verify that the substance was in fact methamphetamine. Therefore, we conclude that Chantharath’s admission to Nance that he provided appellant with the alleged methamphetamine does not establish that appellant was guilty of first-degree controlled substance crime.

Next, the state cites State v. Voss, 192 Minn. 127, 131, 255 N.W. 843, 845 (1934), for the proposition that a defendant may be convicted on the basis of his confession when the confession is corroborated by the testimony of an accomplice. The state contends that Chantharath, appellant’s accomplice, corroborated appellant’s confession when Chantharath admitted to Agent Nance that he provided appellant with the alleged methamphetamine. But Voss requires that the accomplice actually testify in order- for his corroboration to serve as the basis of a conviction. Here, Chanthar-ath did not testify at the trial; therefore, he was not subject to cross-examination. The jury was never presented with the opportunity to make its own assessment of Chantharath’s credibility and decide what weight, if any, to give to his testimony. Therefore, appellant’s confession was not corroborated by accomplice testimony because appellant’s accomplice did not testify.

2. Weight of the controlled substance

Lastly, the state argues that its failure to conduct any scientific testing to determine the weight of the controlled substance is not fatal to its case. The state contends that the weight of the “sausage-shaped” package was established by the representations of appellant and Chanthar-ath that the package was a pound of methamphetamine; and by the fact that $10,000 is the going rate for one pound of methamphetamine. But appellant argues that under State v. Robinson, 517 N.W.2d 336 (Minn.1994), the state must establish the requisite statutory weight through scientific testing. We find appellant’s argument persuasive.

In Robinson the defendant was found in possession of a plastic bag containing what appeared to be thirteen individual packets of crack cocaine. Id. at 338. The state’s expert chemist randomly selected six or seven of the thirteen packets, emptied them into a single container, tested samples of the resulting mixture, and determined that the mixture was 87.6 percent cocaine base. Id. The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the defendant’s conviction and remanded the case for sentencing for second-degree controlled substance crime (sale of three grams or more). Id. at 340. The court noted that “there seems to be no good reason why a sufficient quantity of the mixture [of cocaine] should not be scientifically tested so as to establish beyond a reasonable doubt an essential element of the crime charged.” Id. at 339. The court concluded that on the facts of the case, the material suspected of containing cocaine was not homogenously packaged as to permit random sample testing to establish that the material contained ten or more grams of cocaine. Id. at 340.

Despite this holding, the state argues that Robinson does not foreclose a conviction here because nothing in Robinson suggests that scientific testing is the only permissible means to establish the weight of a controlled substance for purposes of meeting the statutory requirements. We disagree. In reaching its decision to reverse the conviction in Robinson, the supreme court looked at the increase in sentences for drug offenses in recent years. It noted that a first-degree controlled substance crime is now a severity level VIII offense, with a presumptive 86-month sentence even with a zero criminal history score. Id. at 339. The court reasoned that where a penalty as serious as 10 years’ imprisonment may hinge on a gram, it was not too much to require scientific testing to establish the requisite weight. Id. Here, appellant was sentenced to a prison term of 110 months based on a criminal history score of two. What Robinson makes abundantly clear is that given the harshness of sentencing in drug cases, the state must be held to its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we hold that, where weight is an element of the drug offense, scientific testing is required to establish the requisite weight, and that the evidence presented here is legally insufficient to establish the weight of the purported controlled substance.

DECISION

Because the evidence is legally insufficient to identify the contents in the “sausage-shaped” package as methamphetamine, and because the package was not scientifically tested to ascertain its weight, the jury could not reasonably conclude that the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt both the identity and weight of the controlled substance. Accordingly, we reverse appellant’s conviction for first-degree controlled substance crime and remand to the trial court for sentencing on the conspiracy or aiding-and-abetting convictions.

Reversed and remanded.

FORSBERG, Judge

(dissenting).

I respectfully disagree with the court that appellant’s confession was not sufficiently corroborated by accomplice testimony to sustain his conviction for first-degree controlled substance crime. While Chantharath did not testify at the trial, his corroboration of defendant’s confession was presented to the jury via the testimony of agent Nance. Agent Nance testified that following his arrest, Chantharath admitted to him the he had given appellant the pound of methamphetamine that appellant offered to sell to agent Nance. This testimony is consistent with appellant’s confession wherein he admitted that he tried to sale agent Nance a pound of methamphetamine, which he obtained from Chantharath. The essential matters admitted in appellant’s confession, namely that the controlled substance was methamphetamine and that it weighed a pound, were corroborated by his accomplice, Chantharath. The jury adequately received evidence from appellant’s accomplice corroborating appellant’s confession. I would affirm the conviction.

      . Minn.Stat. § 634.03 provides that a defendant's confession is not sufficient to warrant a conviction without evidence that the offense charged has been committed.

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