author: KONENKAMP, Justice. SABERS, Justice

text:
    2001 SD 101
    Jorge A. ZEPEDA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Leslie Renee ZEPEDA, Defendant and Appellee.
    Nos. 21737, 21755.
    Supreme Court of South Dakota.
    Considered on Briefs May 29, 2001.
    Decided Aug. 1, 2001.

      R. Scott Rhinehart of Richard Rhinehart & Associates, Sioux City, IA, Attorneys for plaintiff and appellant.

      David L. Reinschmidt, Colby M. Less-mann of Munger, Reinschmidt & Denne, Sioux City, IA, Attorney for defendant and appellee.
   KONENKAMP, Justice.

[¶ 1.] In this divorce appeal, the father challenges the custody award of his son to the mother, alleging that the circuit court failed to adequately consider the guiding principles in Fuerstenberg v. Fuerstenberg, 1999 SD 35, 591 N.W.2d 798. From our review of the record, however, it is apparent that the circuit court carefully balanced these considerations in its decision. By notice of review, the mother appeals the denial of general alimony, rehabilitative alimony, and attorney’s fees. We affirm on all issues because the evidence supports the rulings, and we find no abuse of discretion.

A.

[¶ 2.] Jorge and Leslie Renee Zepeda (Renee) met in 1986 while they were both students at Louisiana State University. They married on November 27, 1987. Both eventually earned bachelor’s degrees. Jorge graduated from LSU with a degree in electrical engineering. Renee received her degree from the University of Alabama, after accumulating college credit at various institutions. Before completing her degree, she gave birth to the couple’s only child, Jorgito, born November 6, 1996. Renee cared for Jorgito “during the daytime when [Jorge] was at work.” After obtaining her degree, Renee stayed home to provide full-time childcare.

[¶ 3.] In November 1998, Jorge accepted a position with Gateway Computer Company, and the couple moved to Dakota Dunes, South Dakota. This position provided a substantial salary increase. Renee continued to stay at home with Jorgito. In her words, she accepted the “woman’s role in the house.” She “took care of the majority of attending to Jorgito, his feeding, cleaning, dressing, shopping for clothes for him, [and] buying food for him.” Jorge’s brother, who lived with the couple for a short time, substantiated her rendition for the most part. Jorge recalled that he also spent a great deal of his free time playing with and educating Jorgito. Renee disputed Jorge’s recollection, insisting that Jorge worked long hours and spent little time with his son either during the week or on the weekends.

[¶ 4.] After their move to South Dakota, marital difficulties began to emerge. According to Renee, Jorge was either “controlling” or he ignored her, choosing to “talk to his computer or the TV rather than [her].” For his part, Jorge became suspicious of Renee’s activities on the Internet while he was at work. He installed software on their home computer to covertly monitor her keystrokes. What he discovered would become a focal point in the divorce proceedings. In trial, Renee admitted that from late July 1999 until sometime in October of that year she engaged in “highly erotic” discourse on Internet “chatrooms” with two different adult men. These communications occurred, in her estimate, perhaps “once a week.” She explained that “it was kind of enjoyable that someone was finding interest in me.” But her infidelity was not confined to the Internet. Renee had sexual relations several times with another man in July 1999. On one occasion, after sharing a bottle of wine, the two engaged in sexual intercourse in Renee and Jorge’s apartment while Jorgito was sleeping.

[¶ 5.] Jorge sued for divorce in September 1999. As the precipitating cause, he blamed Renee’s sexual affair along with her “cybersex” conversations. He believed that Renee’s Internet use had become an addiction. In her answer, Renee also requested a divorce. Both Jorge and Renee sought temporary custody of Jorgi-to. Before the interim hearing, the couple was evaluated by psychologist, Dr. Matt Stricherz. Stricherz opined that “while not appropriate for the marriage,” Renee’s Internet use was not an addiction. Stri-cherz also noted that “[n]either [parent] has issues in their past that would indicate an inability to provide adequate care for the child. The father has his strengths. The mother has her strengths.”

[¶ 6.] Following the hearing, the court granted temporary custody to Renee, with visitation for Jorge. The court placed express conditions on Renee. First, she was not to have “any men in her apartment or in her presence while the child [was] present.” Second, she was to refrain from consuming alcohol. Third, she could not use the Internet throughout the duration of the divorce and custody proceedings unless required by her employment.

[¶ 7.] In February 2000, Jorge accepted a position with Dell Computer Corporation in Austin, Texas. His benefits included a $10,000 per year pay increase and a more flexible schedule. The parties agreed to modify Jorge’s visitation. Every other Wednesday Jorge flew back to South Dakota and kept Jorgito from Wednesday through Sunday. Renee in no way hindered Jorge’s ability to visit his son.

[¶ 8.] The divorce trial was held in August 2000. Jorge offered computer log-on records from August 1 through October 22, 1999. They showed a substantial amount of Internet use in the household. For example, the computer was logged on for up to seven hours a day in August 1999. These records do not indicate, however, which member of the household used the Internet or whether the computer was simply left logged-on.

[¶ 9.] The court heard testimony from a licensed independent social worker, Judy Conner, who had visited with all three members of the family. She described Jorgito as a very active child who spoke very well even at age two. She observed that he “appeared to be very attached to both of his parents.” Conner found Jorge and Renee “to be very caring parents.” She saw nothing “that raised a red flag ... or any kind of alarm.” Dr. Stricherz’s opinions coincided with Conner’s. He had re-evaluated Renee in July 2000 in an attempt to ascertain any behavioral changes since the temporary hearing. Stricherz reaffirmed that Renee had no Internet addiction and noted that his initial conclusion was supported by the absence of any substituted behaviors after her computer was taken away. At trial, Jorge produced no evidence that Renee had engaged in any inappropriate conduct since the temporary hearing.

[¶ 10.] Jorgito has attended the same daycare facility since December 1999. One of the daycare providers confirmed Jorgito’s strong attachment to his mother:

When she brings him in every morning, he has his arms around her waist ... [a]nd he always hugs her goodbye and says goodbye ... She always turns back twice and waves goodbye, and he’s always waiting for her to turn back again[.]

The same witness described Jorgito as “very intelligent” and “soft-hearted.”

[¶ 11.] At the time of trial, Renee was working full-time for an agency that provides long term temporary employees to Gateway. ■ With this position and another intermittent part-time position, Renee expected to earn between $25,000 and $26,000 that year. In her opinion, to obtain a better paying job she would need a master’s degree in business administration. She had researched that possibility and its cost at the time of trial.

[¶ 12.] At the end of the trial, the court ruled from the bench, granting joint legal custody to the parents, with Renee retaining primary physical custody. Jorge was ordered to pay monthly child support of $899. The court denied Renee’s claims for general alimony, rehabilitative alimony, and attorney’s fees. In its written findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court held that Renee was a “fit parent who provides a stable environment, with commensurate continuity of care as well.” Jorge appeals the custody decision on his assertion that the trial court failed to adequately consider Renee’s misconduct and Jorgito’s need to maintain contact with both parents.

B.

Child Custody

[¶ 13.] To decide a custody dispute, a court must consider the child’s temporal, mental, and moral welfare. See Fuerstenberg, 1999 SD 35, ¶ 22, 591 N.W.2d at 806 (citations omitted). No precise formula exists for making a custody determination, but the decision should be balanced and methodical. Id. at ¶ 35. We recognize several “guiding principles” in weighing the evidence. Id. at ¶ 23. These considerations include parental fitness; stability; primary caretaker; child’s preference; harmful parental misconduct; and separation of siblings. See generally Fuerstenberg, 1999 SD 35, ¶¶ 23-32, 591 N.W.2d at 806-10. A court is not bound to make a specific finding in each category; indeed, certain elements may have no application in some cases, and for other cases there may be additional relevant considerations. In the end, our brightest beacon remains the best interests of the child. See Fuerstenberg, 1999 SD 35, ¶23, 591 N.W.2d at 807. A trial court is in a better position to evaluate the facts, and its con-elusions on a child’s best interests will stand unless we find an abuse of discretion. Price v. Price, 2000 SD 64, ¶ 18, 611 N.W.2d 426, 430 (citations omitted).

[¶ 14.] Jorge argues that the court did not consider the importance of “maintaining contact with both parents.” See Fuerstenberg, 1999 SD 36, ¶ 24, 591 N.W.2d at 807. In Fuerstenberg, we recognized that when considering parental fitness it is appropriate to explore a parent’s “willingness to ... encourage and provide frequent and meaningful contact between the child and the other parent.” Id. The crux of Jorge’s argument is that for financial reasons he will not be able to continue flying to South Dakota every other week. Jorge points to a statement made by Renee on cross-examination acknowledging that if Jorge were awarded custody, she would move to Texas to be close to her son. In Jorge’s opinion, to ensure “maximum continuing contact” with both parents, he should be granted custody and Renee should be held to her word and move to Texas.

[¶ 15.] To accept this argument is to ignore our statement in Fuerstenberg that a court should not isolate one consideration to the exclusion of all others when making a custody decision. See 1999 SD 35, ¶ 31, 591 N.W.2d at 809. The court stated in its bench ruling that there was no evidence that “either parent [was] unfit.” It found neither parent to have any “emotional, mental, or physical problem.” Additionally, it recognized that both parents could adequately provide for the child, and it specifically noted that “[b]oth are willing to encourage and provide frequent and meaningful contact between the child and the other parent.” The court emphasized that Renee “had actually demonstrated [her] ommitment to provide ... meaningful ccitact with [the] child’s father” by flexibly altering visitation arrangements after Jorge’s move.

[¶ 16.] As suggested in Fuerstenberg, these matters were considered along with stability and continuity of care. In addressing stability, the court found that the child “[was] well adjusted and has been in the home and community.” The court explained that the scales were about even, but the stability consideration made “just ever so slight a difference.” Renee had a closer bond with Jorgito. Indeed, the court noted in its written findings of fact that Renee had been the primary caregiver. The court addressed each of the applicable considerations, and its ruling evinces a methodical balancing. It found that Renee was a fit parent who provided stability and continuity for the child.

[¶ 17.] Jorge contends that the circuit court “improperly concluded that Renee’s behavior did not detract from her future ability to parent.” Generally, marital misconduct alone is not a controlling consideration when making a custody determination. See SDCL 25-4-45.1; Kester v. Kester, 257 N.W.2d 731, 734 (S.D.1977). However, when misconduct results in some demonstrable harm to the child, parental fitness becomes an issue. Fuerstenberg, 1999 SD 35, ¶ 31, 591 N.W.2d at 809 (citing Madson v. Madson, 313 N.W.2d 42, 43-44 (S.D.1981)). Harm is self-evident when misconduct occurs in the presence of a child mature enough to perceive it. See Price, 2000 SD 64, ¶ 42, 611 N.W.2d at 435 (citations omitted).

[¶ 18.] The trial court found different categories of marital misconduct and examined each one. Regarding Renee’s Internet usage, the court believed that Dr. Stricherz was the more credible expert. Stricherz discredited the suggestion that Renee suffered an Internet addiction. The court believed Renee’s testimony that she had abstained from Internet usage and erotic discourse since the temporary custody hearing. Although the court labeled such conduct “potentially harmful” and “appalling,” it found no “demonstrable effect on [Jorgito].” In discussing the instance of sexual intercourse in the home while Jorgito was sleeping, the court again emphasized that Renee’s conduct was reprehensible. The court concluded, however, that the child was not in Renee’s direct presence, that he was monitored with a baby monitor, and that the incident was an isolated one. Consequently, the court found no harmful effect on the child. The court discounted allegations of excessive drinking based on the lack of evidence. All Renee’s misconduct occurred in a three month time span from July to October 1999.

[¶ 19.] We review findings of fact deferentially, applying the clearly erroneous standard. Fuerstenberg, 1999 SD 35, ¶ 16, 591 N.W.2d at 804 (citing Therkildsen v. Fisher Bev., 1996 SD 39, ¶ 8, 545 N.W.2d. 834, 836). In Jorge’s brief, he asserts that Renee was not candid with the trial court. In essence, he argues that the court erred when it failed to accept his version of the facts. It was obvious to the trial court, and it is obvious to us now, that Jorge is a dedicated and loving father. Indeed, the judge-acknowledged that the custody decision was a close one. Yet, we are in no position to reweigh the evidence. Absent clear proof of error, we must defer to the judge’s firsthand perception of the witnesses and the significance the judge gave to their testimony. Fuerstenberg, 1999 SD 35, ¶ 22, 591 N.W.2d at 807 (citations omitted). Like the circuit court, we do not condone Renee’s misconduct, but we cannot hold that the court was clearly erroneous when it ruled that the misconduct had no harmful effect on Jorgito. Finding no error or abuse of discretion, we affirm the circuit court’s decision to award custody to Renee.

C.

General and Rehabilitative Alimony

[¶ 20.] Renee sought $10,000 in alimony a year for three years. She also asked for $17,263 in rehabilitative alimony to pursue a master’s degree in business administration at the University of South Dakota. The court denied both requests. We review the circuit court’s rulings on alimony under the abuse of discretion standard. Urban v. Urban, 1998 SD 29, ¶ 8, 576 N.W.2d 873, 875; Albrecht v. Albrecht, 2000 SD 54, ¶25, 609 N.W.2d 765, 772 (citations omitted). When applying this standard, we do not inquire whether we would have made the same decision. Instead, we decide only whether the circuit court could reasonably reach the conclusion it did in view of the applicable law and the circumstances of the case. Olson v. Olson, 1996 SD 90, ¶ 9, 552 N.W.2d 396, 399 (citations omitted).

[¶21.] The objective of general alimony is to provide necessities such as food, clothing, and habitation. Urban, 1998 SD 29, ¶ 7, 576 N.W.2d at 875. As the requesting party, Renee had to prove her need for support and Jorge’s ability to provide it. See id. (citing Fox v. Fox, 467 N.W.2d 762, 767 (S.D.1991)). In deciding whether to award general alimony, a court must balance certain elements, including the length of the marriage, the parties’ respective earning capacities, the parties’ financial conditions after the property division, their age and health, their station in life, and their relative fault in the failure of the marriage. Price, 2000 SD 64, ¶ 61, 611 N.W.2d at 437 (citations omitted).

[¶ 22.] A review of the record demonstrates that the circuit court considered each required element. The marriage lasted just over twelve years. Both parties were in their mid-thirties and in good health. Renee and Jorge agreed to an equal property division. The court properly considered alimony and property division together. Evans v. Evans, 1997 SD 16, ¶ 31, 559 N.W.2d 240, 247 (citations omitted). The court recognized that Jorge’s and Renee’s incomes were “vastly disparate,” with Jorge earning three times as much as Renee. Yet, it also recognized that Jorge’s present salary was a “relatively new acquisition” occurring after the parties’ separation. The court emphasized that “each had stable employment and a middle class station in life” both before and after the separation. Indeed, at trial Renee described her present station in life as middle class.

[¶ 23.] In its bench ruling, the judge found that “both parties [were] truly at fault” and granted the divorce based on irreconcilable differences. The court also found that Renee’s use of,the Internet for sexual discourse and her infidelity in the marital home was “appalling.” Her erotic colloquies on the Internet were “inappropriate for the marriage” and were part of the impetus behind Jorge’s decision to seek a divorce. Marital infidelity can be considered when awarding or denying alimony. Evans, 1997 SD 16, ¶ 33-34, 559 N.W.2d at 248.

[¶24.] Renee contends that the court erred in finding that she and Jorge had equal educational levels. Although both possess a bachelor’s degree, Renee believes that “Jorge’s electrical engineering degree is a specialized degree.” At trial, there was no showing that Renee will suffer some financial detriment because of the divorce. With her bachelor’s degree in business administration, she is gainfully employed. The couple’s property was evenly divided. Cf. Urban, 1998 SD 29, ¶ 11, 576 N.W.2d at 876. Had we been sitting as trial judges, we might have given greater weight to the disparity in earnings and awarded some alimony, but under these facts, we cannot say that the circuit court abused its discretion.

[¶25.] When assessing a request for rehabilitative alimony, the court must consider (1) the supporting spouse’s contributions, (2) the forgone oppox-tunities to enhance or improve marketable skills, and (3) the duration of the marriage following completion of the non-supporting spouse’s education. Albrecht, 2000 SD 54, ¶ 25, 609 N.W.2d at 772 (citations omitted). An essential prerequisite to recovering rehabilitative alimony is proof of an educational need and a plan to meet that need. Urban, 1998 SD 29, ¶ 13, 576 N.W.2d at 876-77 (citing Evans, 1997 SD 16, ¶ 35, 559 N.W.2d at 248-49).

[¶ 26.] Renee insists that she adequately “described her educational plan at trial.” She explained that a master’s degree in business administration will enhance her employability and earning capacity and make up for her lack of workplace experience. She obtained her bachelor’s degree during the marriage. As the trial court recognized, she was gainfully employed and enjoyed a middle class station in life. While Renee’s plan to enhance her earning capacity is commendable, she has not demonstrated that additional training is required for her to become self-sufficient. See Albrecht, 2000 SD 54, ¶¶ 26-27, 609 N.W.2d at 772-73. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it refused rehabilitative alimony.

D.

Attorney’s Fees

[¶ 27.] At trial, Renee requested $12,101 in attorney’s fees. She testified that she did not have this amount available and that her income was too low to earn it. The court denied Renee’s request, ruling that each party should be responsible for their own fees. We review the circuit court’s denial for abuse of discretion. Whalen v. Whalen, 490 N.W.2d 276, 284 (S.D.1992)(mocfoj%d on other grounds) (citations omitted).

[¶ 28.] In deciding whether to award attorney’s fees, a court may consider the property each party owns; their relative incomes; the nature of their assets, fixed or liquid; and whether either party unreasonably prolonged the divorce. See Schwab v. Schwab, 505 N.W.2d 752, 756 (S.D.1993)(citing Radigan v. Radigan, 465 N.W.2d 483, 487 (S.D.199R). These are the same elements we review when we consider a request for appellate attorney’s fees. See Wolff v. Weber, 1997 SD 52, ¶ 14, 563 N.W.2d 136, 139-40 (citations omitted).

[¶ 29.] In its findings, the circuit court recognized that neither party possessed property of any significance. All assets liquid or fixed were equally split. The court noted that both parties “aggressively sought custody,” but did not find that either party had unreasonably prolonged litigation. The court acknowledged that Jorge earned a substantially higher income, but all other matters being equal, it denied an award of attorney’s fees. We cannot hold that the circuit court’s ruling was clearly against reason, and thus we affirm its decision.

[¶ 30.] Renee has also requested appellate attorney’s fees. Accompanying her request is an itemized statement as required. Wolff, 1997 SD 52, ¶ 14, 563 N.W.2d at 139 (citations omitted). Although the facts presented a close question, Jorge appealed this case knowing that well-established law governed the issues. Consequently, Renee was required to expend additional time and financial resources. Considering these matters together with the large difference in the parties’ income, we award appellate attorney’s fees to Renee of $2500.

[¶ 31.] Affirmed.

[¶ 32.] MILLER, Chief Justice, and AMUNDSON and GILBERTSON, Justices, concur.

[¶ 33.] SABERS, Justice, dissents.

SABERS, Justice

(dissenting).

[¶ 34.] The trial court failed to make a reasoned and proper consideration of the evidence presented at trial concerning Renee’s need for alimony and, therefore, abused its discretion. I dissent on issue C, general and rehabilitative alimony, because the trial court erred in not awarding any alimony. The trial court’s findings on this issue are wholly inadequate:

Alimony
35. [Renee] testified regarding her financial need for permanent alimony for three years in the amount of $10,000 per year.
36. [Renee] further testified regarding her financial need for rehabilitative alimony to commence a Masters in Business Administration.
37. [Renee] testified regarding her intent to start a Masters in Business Administration at the University of South Dakota as soon as possible, but likely not until fall 2001.
38. The cost of the MBA program is approximately $10,263.33, plus additional costs of $2,000 for books and $5,000 for transportation.
39. [Jorge] and [Renee]’s incomes are vastly disparate, with [Jorge] earning approximately three times as much as [Renee].
40. [Jorge] and [Renee] made a joint decision during their marriage that [Renee] should stay home to care for the minor child.
41. I award no permanent or rehabilitative alimony.

This conclusory statement is not a reasoned consideration of the factors required in any alimony decision. See Peterson v. Peterson, 2000 SD 58, ¶ 9, 610 N.W.2d 69, 70. A proper consideration of these factors justifies an award of alimony on this record.

[¶ 35.] Renee expected to earn a living of approximately $25,000 to $26,000 per year. She was accomplishing this modest amount by working two jobs while caring for her child. One of those jobs was an intermittent part-time position. In contrast, Jorge was earning three times as much at one job. The trial court found both parties at fault for the divorce, not just Renee. The parties had been married for twelve years, and during this time Renee was displaced from the competitive job market by mutual decision. That should not result in an automatic denial of alimony. Likewise, Renee’s statement that she considered her lifestyle to be “middle class” does not negate alimony.

[¶ 36.] It was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to award no alimony on these facts. In my view, the trial court should have awarded at least $400 per month for the next three years. Therefore, I dissent on issue C.

      . The parties gave contradictory testimony about who usually cooked in the evening and Renee's housekeeping aptitudes.

      . At trial and again in his brief, Jorge alleged that Renee engaged in "explicit cybersex internet conversations" with males under the age of 18. Jorge failed to introduce evidence at trial to support this allegation. Renee denied that any conversations with minors occurred. In his brief, Jorge cites to Plaintiff's Exhibit 24. This was simply a list of email addresses and ages. Renee testified that she did encounter some males under 18 when frequenting chat rooms dealing with "classic board games.”

      . The parties disagree on the amount of time Renee spent engaging in these conversations. In his brief, Jorge asserts that "Renee ... began spending substantial hours nearly every day pursuing illicit relationships on the internet with adult men." Jorge fails to cite the record to support his statement. At trial, he introduced log-on records for the home computer for August 1 through October 22, 1999. These records only indicate the time the computer was logged on. They do not show the activities engaged in during these time periods. Renee testified that she used the Internet for genealogy searches for her mother and often played games.

      . There is a dispute in the record about whether the parties agreed to an "open marriage,” where each would be free to engage in intimate relations with other partners. The court made no findings on this.

      . Jorge offered testimony from Dr. Scott Pri-byl, a psychologist. Pribyl thought there was a "possibility” that Renee had an Internet addiction. He testified that it appeared "there were times ... that her usé of the Internet was impacting her sleep patterns and perhaps her ability to attend to the child." In its bench ruling, the court found Stricherz and Conner to be the more credible witnesses because they had actually met with the family. Pribyl's opinion was based solely on his review of documentary evidence.

      . Jorge cites Jeschke v. Wockenfuss, 534 N.W.2d 602 (S.D.1995), and similar cases in support of his argument that "maximum continuing contact" with both parents should outweigh all other considerations. In Jesch-ke, this Court recognized that placement with a parent who attempts to alienate a child from the noncustodial parent and actively interferes with visitation is not in the child's best interests. Id. at 606-07. Jeschke is inapplicable to this case.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: PAUL H. ANDERSON, Justice.

license: Public Domain

text:
    ASTLEFORD EQUIPMENT CO., INC., Petitioner, Appellant, v. NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION CORP., a Delaware corporation, Respondent.
    No. C5-99-1612.
    Supreme Court of Minnesota.
    July 19, 2001.

      Robert L. DeMay, David M. Jaffe, Minneapolis, for appellant.
    Thomas W. Pahl, Ezra D. Rosenberg, Princeton, NJ, for respondent.
    J. Michael Dady, Minneapolis, for ami-cus curiae Farm Equipment Ass’n of MN and SD, and Equipment Distributors Ass’n of MN.
   OPINION

PAUL H. ANDERSON, Justice.

Astleford Equipment Co., an International truck dealership, brought an action in Hennepin County District Court against Navistar International Transportation Corp., the manufacturer of International trucks.- Astleford alleged that Navistar violated Minnesota’s Heavy and Utility Equipment Manufacturers and Dealers Act (HUEMDA) when it approved another International truck dealership within 10 miles of Astleford’s Burnsville, Minnesota dealership. HUEMDA provides in relevant part that no equipment manufacturer “may terminate, cancel, fail to renew, or substantially change the competitive circumstances of a dealership agreement without good cause.” Minn.Stat. § 325E.0681, subd. 1. Astleford alleged that Navistar violated the statute by substantially changing the competitive circumstances of its dealership agreement when it approved the other dealership as an International truck dealership. The district court found in favor of Navistar and the court of appeals affirmed. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand to the district court.

Astleford was established in 1945 as a dealer of farm implements manufactured by International Harvester Corporation. It was located in Richfield until 1985 when it moved to its current location in Burns-ville. Since the 1960s, Astleford has been a dealer of the International brand of commercial trucks. Navistar is the successor in interest to the truck division of International Harvester Corporation. Astleford currently sells new medium-duty International trucks, Isuzu trucks, used trucks, and it sells parts and provides service for all types of trucks.

At one time, there were a number of International truck dealerships in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area. However, after a significant downturn in the commercial truck industry, several International truck dealerships went out of business. Astleford’s Burnsville dealership and Navistar’s company-owned dealership in Minneapolis were two of the only three International dealerships to survive in this area. Astleford’s survival was due in large part to its ability to maintain profitability in its parts and service sales. In. 1982, Navistar sold its Minneapolis dealership to North Star International Trucks, Inc. (North Star International), which is owned and operated by Michael Gleeson, a former Navistar regional manager of dealer operations. Since 1982, As-tleford and North Star International have been intrabrand competitors.

In 1988, Navistar attempted to terminate Astleford’s dealership contract. At the time, Astleford was authorized to sell parts and do warranty service for all International trucks, and it was authorized to sell both heavy-duty and medium-duty International trucks. The dealership contract also assigned Astleford an area of responsibility in which Astleford was expected to maintain a certain level of sales, but there was no agreement as to exclusivity'within or without the area of responsibility. In response to Navistar’s efforts to terminate the dealership contract, Astle-ford sued Navistar for breach of contract. The 1988 case settled in 1990. As part of the settlement agreement, Astleford’s dealership contract was revised, and Astle-ford gave up its right to sell heavy-duty International trucks. Following the contract revision, the only International trucks Astleford was authorized to sell were medium-duty trucks. However, As-tleford could still service heavy-duty trucks, and this type of service made up approximately 40% of its service business.

Beginning in 1996, Gleeson attempted to acquire Astleford. When those efforts failed, Gleeson acquired a truck repair and rental facility in Eagan, which was within 10 miles of Astleford. Gleeson then established North Star Fleet at this location and applied to Navistar for approval of North Star Fleet as an International truck dealership. Because North Star Fleet is located within 10 miles of Astleford and would be in direct competition with Astleford, Navistar was concerned about violating Minn.Stat. § 80E.14 (2000) of the Motor Vehicle Sale and Distribution Act (MVSDA). The MVSDA provides in relevant part that if a manufacturer intends to introduce a new motor vehicle dealership into a relevant market area (defined as 10 miles) where the “fine make” is already represented, the manufacturer must provide notice, and if the location of the proposed dealership is challenged by the existing dealership, there must be a judicial determination of good cause for establishing the new dealership. MinmStat. § 80E.14. As a result, Navistar intended to approve North Star Fleet only as a heavy-duty International truck dealership. Shortly thereafter, Navistar notified Astle-ford of its intention to approve the nearby North Star Fleet dealership.

After receiving the notice, Astleford brought an action against Navistar in Hen-nepin County District Court for violating the MVSDA and HUEMDA and for breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Upon commencement of this action, Navistar suspended approval of its dealership contract with North Star Fleet pending resolution of the action. Before trial, the court dismissed Astle-ford’s claim regarding breach of an implied covenant of good faith. The parties stipulated that good cause under HUEMDA was not an issue in the case. The MVSDA and HUEMDA claims were then tried before the court without a jury.

At trial, an expert witness for Astleford presented an extensive analysis of the detrimental financial effect another International dealership located in such close proximity could have on Astleford. The expert testified that proximity is a significant factor in determining where a customer takes repair work. He then defined a dealership’s relevant market area to be the 12-mile radius around that dealership because 12 miles is the distance that truck owners are generally willing to travel for repair work. The expert then testified that the total geographic area covered by Gleeson’s two dealerships increases by only 15% with the addition of North Star Fleet. At the same time, the area in which North Star and North Star Fleet’s relevant.market areas overlap with Astle-ford’s relevant market area more than doubles with the addition of North Star Fleet.

. Sandra Dawson, Astleford’s owner and president, testified that her main concern regarding the new dealership was that much of Astleford’s parts and service business would be lost if the new dealership were permitted. Dawson claimed that parts and service accounted for the largest portion of Astleford’s profits. To support this claim, Astleford’s expert presented evidence that in 1996 and 1997, 95.7% of Astleford’s net profits were from the parts, service, and paint and body shop departments. Dawson also asserted that Astle-ford could maintain a competitive advantage over a new dealership such as North Star Fleet only because it provides parts and service that are covered by an International warranty. Astleford’s expert testified that during the 6 months before trial, approximately 93% of Astleford’s gross profits from parts and service was from “International related” business. However, there was. not any evidence . of the portion of that work that was actual International warranty work.

Astleford’s expert testified that during the 6 months before trial, 38.3% of Astle-ford’s gross profits from all parts and service business came from customers in a geographic area closer to North Star Fleet than Astleford. The expert concluded that 38.3% was the portion of Astleford’s business that, with North Star Fleet in place, would be in a geographical area where North Star Fleet, from a pure proximity standpoint, would have a competitive advantage. He determined if 38.3% of Astle-ford’s gross profits were lost due to North Star Fleet’s competition, Astleford would lose 52.4% of its net profits.

Navistar responded to the expert’s testimony by arguing that the expert’s definition of “International related” business included both warranty and nonwarranty work. Navistar argued that any dealership could compete with Astleford for non-warranty work. It also claimed that the expert included in his computations all the warranty and nonwarranty work done for Astleford customers with more than one vehicle, even though some of the vehicles worked on for these customers were not International trucks. It went on to assert that this distinction was critical because Astleford’s contract with Navistar did not provide Astleford with any competitive advantage for work done on trucks that were not International trucks. Navistar also pointed out that 80% of truck parts are all-make parts, meaning that they are interchangeable among manufacturers. It asserted that any dealership could provide all-make parts for International trucks without Navistar’s approval. Navistar argued that if the court looked only at warranted parts and service and were to factor in that 80% of parts are all-make parts, the percentage of Astleford’s profits threatened by approval of North Star Fleet as an International dealership would be much smaller than estimated by Astle-ford’s expert.

Navistar also argued that non-International service centers could sell International parts that carry the International warranty, and that only the service provided by such centers would not be warranted because it was not done at an authorized International dealership. Therefore, Nav-istar argued, a customer could take non-warranty work to any mechanic without suffering any disadvantage. Navistar claimed that other service centers could offer warranties similar to International’s warranty on service.

Astleford responded to this claim by asserting that the advantage of using International parts and service is that the large nationwide chain of International dealerships offers replacement service on warranted parts. Navistar has the largest dealership network in the country, which network serves the parts and service needs of International truck customers. This network provides Navistar and its dealers with an advantage over their competitors. Astleford also asserted that the ability of a dealer to guarantee free replacement service at any International dealership gives the dealer a substantial advantage in competing for all-make parts replacement and nonwarranty service business.

Navistar next argued that the proposed North Star Fleet dealership would not have any effect on Astleford’s body shop work because North Star Fleet does not have a body shop. Navistar also asserted that North Star Fleet was in operation for the 15-month period before trial, offering all services except warranty service, and Astleford had not offered any evidence of financial harm actually suffered by Astle-ford during this period. Finally, Navistar argued that Astleford’s expert admitted that if more trucks were sold, it would provide an increased source of warranty service business.

Another International dealer testified on behalf of Navistar. This dealer, a former Navistar employee who operates an International dealership in another state, testified that North Star Fleet would not have a large impact on Astleford’s profits because there are so many parts and service competitors in the area surrounding Astle-ford. He stated that one more competitor would not make a large difference. This witness testified that Astleford had loyal customers who would not change dealerships and that Astleford would lose only 20-25% of the 40% of the customers who were in a geographic area that was closer to North Star Fleet than to Astleford. The witness also testified that because of a mechanic shortage, Astleford would maintain its maximum capacity for service business. He claimed that North Star Fleet would have so much business coming from customers located in a geographic area in close proximity to it that it would not have the capacity to take much business away from Astleford.

After hearing all the evidence, the district court issued 143 findings of fact and, based on these findings, concluded that Astleford failed to establish that approval of North Star Fleet as an International dealership would substantially change the competitive circumstances of Astleford’s dealership contract with Navistar. Among other things, the court found that: the North Star dealership would stimulate heavy-duty International truck sales; any increase in sales of heavy-duty trucks would result in new parts and services income for Astleford; Astleford would lose its competitive advantage in the relevant market area if North Star was approved as an International heavy truck dealer; As-tleford already faces so much competition in the parts and services markets that the addition of one more competitor would have no substantial impact on Astleford; 80% of truck parts were interchangeable; in good economic times, North Star Fleet would not significantly affect the stability of Astleford’s dealership; in future economic downturns, Astleford is far more likely to survive than North Star Fleet; and the approval of North Star Fleet “will only result in a minimal change in the competitive circumstances of Astleford, not a substantial chnge (sic).” Based on these findings, the court ruled in favor of Navis-tar and denied all relief under the MVSDA and HUEMDA.

Astleford appealed to the court of appeals on the grounds that the district court incorrectly applied the relevant sections of the MVSDA and HUEMDA, that the district court erred in failing to require Nav-istar to comply with certain discovery requests, and that Astleford was entitled to a new trial because the district court considered a market penetration analysis that Navistar had not prepared until after trial. Astleford argued, among other things, that the district court misinterpreted or misapplied HUEMDA’s prohibition against substantially changing the competitive circumstances of a dealership.agreement without good cause.

The court of appeals concluded it did not have grounds to reverse the district court’s findings of fact because the findings were not clearly erroneous. Astleford Equip. Co. v. Navistar Int'l, 611 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Minn.App.2000). It affirmed the court’s conclusion that approval of North Star Fleet as an International dealership would not amount to a substantial change in the competitive circumstances. Id. The court of appeals also concluded that the phrase “substantially change the competitive circumstances” means “conduct amounting to a de facto or constructive termination of a dealership agreement.” Id. at 39. Finally, the court of appeals rejected Astleford’s arguments regarding the MVSDA, the denial of discovery requests, and the market penetration analysis that was presented to the district court after trial. Id. at 41-42.

Astleford then appealed to our court, again asserting that the district court did not properly apply section 325E.0681 of HUEMDA or section 80E.14 of the MVSDA and that the case should be reversed and remanded for a new trial, or remanded for further consideration under the correct standard. Astleford requests that we hold that a finding of de facto or constructive termination is not required to find a violation of section 325E.0681. We granted review, but limited our review to issues raised under HUEMDA.

I.

This case presents an issue of statutory interpretation, more specifically, the interpretation of Minn.Stat. § 325E.0681, subd. 1, and the meaning of the phrase “substantially change the competitive circumstances of a dealership agreement * * *.” Statutory interpretation is an issue of law that we review de novo. Baker v. State, 590 N.W.2d 636, 638 (Minn.1999). Basic rules of statutory construction instruct that words and phrases are to be construed according to their plain and ordinary meaning. Frank’s Nursery Sales, Inc. v. City of Roseville, 295 N.W.2d 604, 608 (Minn.1980). A statute should be interpreted, whenever possible, to give effect to all of its provisions, and “no word, phrase, or sentence should be deemed superfluous, void, or insignificant.” Amaral v. Saint Cloud Hosp., 598 N.W.2d 379, 384 (Minn.1999). Various provisions of the same statute must be interpreted in light of each other. Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc., 254 Minn. 62, 74, 93 N.W.2d 690, 698 (1958). Finally, courts should construe a statute to avoid absurd and unjust consequences. See Erickson v. Sunset Mem’l Park Ass’n, 259 Minn. 532, 543, 108 N.W.2d 434, 441 (1961).

The first question we must answer is whether, under Minn.Stat. § 325E.0681, subd. 1, Navistar’s approval of North Star Fleet as a heavy-duty International truck dealership substantially changes the competitive circumstances of Navistar’s dealership agreement with Astleford. Our analysis of this first issue focuses on the meaning of the word “substantially.” The court of appeals concluded that for a change in competitive circumstances to be viewed as substantial, it must amount to de facto or constructive termination.

In reaching its conclusion, the court of appeals relied on a Seventh Circuit decision, East Bay Running Store, Inc. v. Nike, Inc., 890 F.2d 996 (7th Cir.1989). East Bay involved the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law (WFDL), Wis. Stat. ch. 135 (1999), which contains a clause with the same language as Minn.Stat. § 325E.0681. The WFDL states “No grantor * * * may terminate, cancel, fail to renew or substantially change the competitive circumstances of a dealership agreement without good cause.” Wis. Stat. § 135.03 (1999). (Emphasis added.) In East Bay, the Seventh Circuit held that the WFDL did not apply to a nondiscriminatory, system-wide policy adopted by the manufacturer that prohibited the mail ordering of a line of shoes. East Bay, 890 F.2d at 1001. After it made this holding, the court went on to state that there was no substantial change in the competitive circumstances amounting to a de facto or constructive termination of the dealership agreement. Id. The Minnesota Court of Appeals extrapolated from this statement a holding by the Seventh Circuit that in order for a change to amount to a substantial change in the competitive circumstances, it must be a change that amounts to de facto or constructive termination. Astleford, 611 N.W.2d at 39. However, this was not the holding in East Bay.

In a footnote in East Bay, the Seventh Circuit cited an earlier Seventh Circuit opinion for the proposition that the WFDL provision regarding substantially changing the competitive circumstances of a dealership agreement “may be meant to protect the dealer against ‘constructive termination.’ ” East Bay, 890 F.2d at 1000, n. 6 (citing Remus v. Amoco Oil Co., 794 F.2d 1238, 1240 (7th Cir.1986)). Although the Seventh Circuit did contemplate a constructive termination standard in Remus, Judge Posner, writing for the court, also stated that the statute “may go somewhat further * * * and protect dealers against new competition that has substantially adverse although not lethal effects.” Remus, 794 F.2d at 1241. This ambiguity in Remus weakens the effect of the Seventh Circuit’s footnote and comment in East Bay regarding a constructive termination standard because East Bay relied on only part of Remus. In fact, it appears that the second statement in Remus regarding a change being substantially adverse although not lethal is more consistent with our interpretation of HUEMDA. Further, while a de facto or constructive termination standard may be attractive because it provides a bright-line rule, we conclude that such a standard is too narrow.

Section 325E.0681, subd. 1, requires good cause in order for a manufacturer to “terminate, cancel, fail to renew, or substantially change the competitive circumstances of a dealership agreement * * As stated earlier, when interpreting a statute, “no word, phrase, or sentence should be deemed superfluous, void, or insignificant.” Amaral, 598 N.W.2d at 384. If substantially change the competitive circumstances of the dealership agreement is interpreted as meaning de facto .termination, the substantial change provision would be rendered superfluous. A plain reading of the word “terminate” would include de facto termination. “De facto” is defined as “actual” Or “existing in fact,” so de facto termination would be actual termination. See Black’s Law Dictionary 427 (7th ed.1999).' In order to give the phrase substantially change the competitive circumstances of the dealership agreement any meaning, the phfase must be construed to mean something other than de facto termination. Therefore, we reject the court of appeals’ interpretation of East Bay and its conclusion that a change in the dealership agreement must- amount to de facto or constructive termination before it can be found to violate the provisions of HUEMDA.

At the opposite end of the spectrum from a de facto termination standard is Astleford’s argument that a substantial change should be defined as any change that is nontrivial. In support of its position, Astleford cites several cases that state that substantial is something more than de minimus. In response, Navistar contends that in the context of competitive circumstances, a change that is more than trivial does not necessarily reach the level of substantial. We reject Astleford’s suggestion that any change in the competitive circumstances of the dealership agreement that is more than trivial amounts to a substantial change. We conclude that such a standard is too broad. In the context of dealerships under the statute, it is safe to assume that some change in competition is permitted even when it is more than trivial. The legislature’s tolerance for some competition is evidenced by the fact that substantial change follows the terms cancel, terminate and fail to renew, all of which are harsh consequences that go way beyond more than trivial.

Because we conclude .that a de facto termination standard is too narrow and a “more than trivial” standard is too broad, the standard for a substantial change in the competitive circumstances of the dealership agreement must be somewhere in between. We have not addressed this issue before; .therefore, to help with our analysis, we look to a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision interpreting a similar provision-the WFDL-and a Minnesota federal district court decision applying Minnesota’s HUEMDA.

Seven years after the Seventh Circuit’s decision in East Bay, the Wisconsin Supreme Court decided Jungbluth v. Hometown, Inc., 201 Wis.2d 320, 548 N.W.2d 519 (1996). Jungbluth operated a service station, owned by Hometown, under a dealership agreement. Jungbluth sued Hometown for violating the WFDL notice provision. The court was asked to determine whether Hometown’s conduct “substantially changed the competitive circumstances of Jungbluth’s dealership so as to require notice pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 135.04.” Jungbluth, 548 N.W.2d at 520. Jungbluth’s service station was under construction for 7 months while ‘ Hometown replaced the fuel storage tanks. Id. at '521. Hometown also decided to remodel Jungbluth’s service station without giving Jungbluth notice. Id. Jungbluth argued that the construction was so substantial that it impaired his ability to do business, thereby substantially changing the competitive circumstances of the dealership agreement. Id.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court first addressed the intent and purpose of the WFDL. Id. The court concluded that the explicit purpose of the WFDL is to “protect dealers against unfair treatment by grantors, who inherently have superior economic power and superior bargaining power in the negotiation of dealerships.” Id. at 522 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Wis. Stat. § 135.025(2)(b)). The court also stated that the WFDL’s notice provision, Wis. Stat. § 135.04, “is designed to afford the dealership the opportunity to react and protect itself from the potentially devastating affects [sic] of an overreaching grantor, who * * * changes the competitive circumstances, not of the dealership agreement, but rather the business itself.” Jungbluth, 548 N.W.2d at 524.

After reviewing the intent and purpose of the WFDL, the Wisconsin court concluded that Hometown’s renovation substantially changed the competitive circumstances of the dealership, entitling Jungbluth to damages because Hometown did not give him 90 days notice as required by section 135.04. Jungbluth, 548 N.W.2d at 525. The court did not address the de facto termination standard set forth in East Bay. Nor did the court state a specific standard. Rather, it limited its analysis to an interpretation of the notice and cure provisions of the WFDL and then based its decision on the facts of the case. Nevertheless, some of the court’s statements give us an insight as to the standard it used when it reached the conclusion that Hometown’s construction projects substantially changed the competitive circumstances of the dealership agreement.

The Wisconsin court stated that the nature of the changes in Jungbluth’s competitive circumstances inhibited his ability to operate his dealership on a daily basis. Jungbluth, 548 N.W.2d at 525. The court also concluded that, due to extensive construction, Jungbluth was not able to develop his clientele or reputation, nor was he successful, in his attempts to realize a profit from the sale of gasoline, convenience-store goods, or auto repair. Id. Additionally, the court concluded that Jungbluth’s competitive position compared to neighboring service stations was greatly diminished because he was not able to fully service the limited number of customers he was able to attract. Id.

The Minnesota Federal District Court, citing Jungbluth’s determination as to the intent and purpose of the WFDL, has concluded that the Minnesota legislature enacted HUEMDA with the same basic intent-to protect the dealer, who has significantly less bargaining power than the grantor. See Midwest Great Dane Trailers, Inc. v. Great Dane Ltd. P’ship, 977 F.Supp. 1386, 1394 (D.Minn.1997) (Great Dane). In Great Dane, the federal district court was determining whether a grantor’s action can be found to violate HUEMDA if such action is not prohibited by the four corners of the dealership agreement. The court concluded

that legislation implemented to protect dealers must protect more than the provisions of the written agreement. “Judicial protection of the terms of a dealership agreement, though meaningful in many other respects, should not come at the expense of the dealer, a party whom the legislature has sought to empower with an equalized bargaining position relative to that of the grantor.”

Id. (quoting Jungbluth, 548 N.W.2d at 524-25).

We agree with the federal district court in Great Dane that the purpose of HUEMDA is to protect the dealer, who is often in a weaker bargaining position than the grantor who inherently has superior economic power in the negotiation of dealerships. We also conclude, as did the Wisconsin Supreme Court when it construed the WFDL in Jungbluth, that in applying HUEMDA, the ultimate conclusion as to whether there was a violation of the statute must be based on the specific facts of the case presented. Therefore, when applying section 325E.0681, subd. 1, of HUEMDA, a court should engage in a case-by-case factual inquiry in reaching its ultimate conclusion of whether there has been a substantial change in the competitive circumstances. However, the key question that remains is what legal standard should the court use when making this inquiry.

A reading of the plain language of the statute indicates that the statute allows some change in competition. Thus, the statute cannot be read to protect a dealer from nearly all new competition that threatens the dealer’s profits. On the other hand, while the express language of the statute encompasses a de facto or constructive termination situation, as stated earlier, we conclude that this standard is too narrow. Such a standard does not protect-a dealer who somehow manages to stay in business, but whose day-to-day viability is severely diminished by the change in competition. The intent and.purpose of the statute is to protect against grantors or manufacturers attempting to create this type of new competition without good cause. Thus, the applicable standard lies somewhere in between these two extremes. Accordingly, we conclude that a substantial change in competitive circumstances is a change that has a substantially adverse although not necessarily lethal effect on the dealership. It is a change that is material to the continued existence of the dealership, one that significantly diminishes its viability, its ability to maintain a reasonable profit over the long term or to stay in business.

II.

With this standard in mind, we next determine what standard was used by the district court in this case when it reached its conclusion. We must then determine whether the court applied the correct standard to the facts. If the court applied the correct standard, we will then review the court’s findings, which we will not set aside unless they are clearly erroneous. Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01.

Based on the district court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law and a review of the record, it is not clear what standard the court applied in concluding that there was not a substantial change in the competitive circumstances of Astleford’s dealership agreement. Astleford argues that the district court must have applied a de facto termination standard to reach its conclusion that there was not a substantial change in the competitive circumstances of the dealership agreement. Astleford asserts that this must be so because certain findings are irreconcilable with the court’s holding, unless the court was applying a de facto termination standard. Astleford points to the following eight findings of fact as being inconsistent with the court’s conclusion.

56. The profitability of any truck dealership depends heavily on service and parts work as opposes (sic) to the sale of new or used trucks.
127. Approximately 95% of Astleford’s new profits are derived from parts sales, service and repairs, including [work performed in] the body shop.
57. Astleford currently enjoys a competitive advantage, in the RMA * * * by-virtue of the investment it has made to be a franchised International dealership. * * * These franchise features give As-tleford competitive advantages compared to other truck parts and service operations which (sic) are not International truck dealers in attracting parts and service business.
60. Astleford’s competitive advantage * ⅜ * would be lost if North Star Fleet were appointed as an International heavy truck dealer.
61. [Proximity] is the primary factor in determining which dealership a customer will frequent for its parts and service business.
61. Navistar’s own witnesses conceded that, over time, truck customers will tend to take their trucks to the nearest International truck dealership for parts replacement and other service.
66. Customers in ZIP code areas closer to the Eagan site than to Astleford account for 41.2% of Astleford’s International-related parts and service gross profits.
66. While Astleford would not lose every International customer closer to the [Eagan] Site, Astleford would not retain every existing International customer closer to its own location, and some loss of business is likely to occur.

Astleford further asserts that, based on the above findings, the court must conclude that approval of North Star Fleet as an International dealership substantially changes the competitive circumstances of Astleford’s dealership agreement.

Some of the district court’s other findings, while being consistent with an ultimate conclusion that approval of the North Star Fleet dealership would not cause a substantial change in the competitive circumstances, create doubt as to whether the correct standard was used. For example, the court found that:

131. In good economic times, the Ea-gan dealership [North Star Fleet] will not significantly affect the stability of Astleford’s dealership.
135. During previous business downturns, Astleford has survived when many other dealerships have failed. In future economic downturns the evidence establishes that Astleford is far more likely to survive than the Eagan facility [North Star Fleet].

These findings appear to be inconsistent with the eight findings cited by Astleford, making it difficult to determine the standard the district court was applying.

We will not set aside a lower court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. See Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01. Our review of the record indicates that with the exception of finding number 143, none of the district court’s findings are clearly erroneous. Finding number 143 states that Navistar’s approval of the North Star Fleet dealership “will only result in a minimal change in the competitive circumstances of Astleford * * It appears as though the court, may have made this finding using a de facto termination standard whereby any action that did not reach the level of de facto termination was considered minimal. Further, when certain of the other findings made by the court are juxtaposed to the standard .we have articulated today, they may be in conflict with each other and may not support the conclusion reached by the court.

When the district court’s findings are reviewed in total, we conclude that it is not evident whether there was a substantial change in the competitive circumstances of the dealership agreement under the standard we have articulated. We also conclude that now that we have articulated the standard to be used when applying HUEMDA, the district court is in the best position to review the record and its findings and to reach a conclusion as to whether Navistar’s approval of North Star Fleet as a heavy-duty International truck dealer substantially changed the competitive circumstances of Navistar’s dealership agreement with Astleford. Therefore, we remand this case to the district court affirming all of the findings with the exception of finding number 143. On remand, we instruct the court to review its findings and conclusions under Minn.Stat. § 325E.0681 in light of the standard we have set forth above.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the district court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

      . Another International dealer testifying on behalf of Navistar explained that it is mostly cab parts and the engine block that are not all-make parts. Most engine component parts, which are usually what require service, are all-make parts.

      . Although Wis. Stat. § 135.03 contains identical language, the WFDL states specifically that its provisions do not apply to motor vehicle dealerships. Wis. Stat. § 135.07(1) (1999).


author: STRINGER, Justice. PAUL H. ANDERSON, J.

text:
    STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Christopher David NELSON, Appellant.
    No. C9-00-1412.
    Supreme Court of Minnesota.
    Aug. 16, 2001.

      John M. Stuart, Minnesota State Public Defender, Jodie L. Carlson, Assistant State Public Defender, Minneapolis, for appellant.
    Mike Hatch, Minnesota Attorney General, John B. Galus, Assistant Attorney General, David S. Voigt, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, Gregory D. Larson, Hubbard County Attorney, Park Rapids, MN, for respondent.
   OPINION

STRINGER, Justice.

Gregory Johnson was last seen on November- 11, 1996. His dismembered body was found the following April. Appellant Christopher David Nelson and Scott Carter were the last persons to see him alive. On November 20, 1997, appellant and Carter were indicted on charges of first- and second-degree murder in Johnson’s death. Carter pled guilty to second-degree murder and testified against appellant at trial. Following a jury verdict of guilty, appellant was convicted of aiding and abetting murder in the first and second degree and sentenced to life in prison. Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction and argues that the trial court erroneously allowed the prosecution to present Spreigl evidence of his participation in two armed robberies. We affirm.

At the time of his death Gregory Johnson was 39 years old and lived alone. Appellant lived with Scott Carter and Carter’s girlfriend, Pamela Rossbach in a trailer home in rural Hubbard County outside of Park Rapids, Minnesota, about 20 minutes from Johnson’s home by car. Johnson worked as a bartender at Art’s Place in Park Rapids and Carter was a regular patron of the bar. In the summer of 1996 appellant was employed at Art’s Place for a brief period. Appellant, Carter, and Rossbach were evicted from their trailer home in October of 1996. Because a rental unit would not be ready until November, Johnson let them stay in his home. Johnson asked them to leave before the rental unit was ready however, and when they moved out, appellant, Carter, and Rossbach had to live in an unheated tent camper until a rental unit was available at the beginning of November.

On November 10 and 11, 1996, Ross-bach’s sister Paula came to the Park Rapids area to look for Rossbach. November 11 was Veteran’s Day and Johnson had the day off work, so he helped Paula find her sister. Johnson told Paula of rumors that her sister was involved in a sexual threesome with appellant and Carter and further, that he planned to have Carter’s inoperable pickup truck towed from his property unless it was removed by the next day. Carter did not own a working vehicle at that time, and often borrowed appellant’s van. Appellant testified that he and Carter often borrowed one another’s guns and tools and that he considered Carter to be a “companion and Mend.”

Paula spoke with her sister in the early afternoon of November 11, 1996 and communicated Johnson’s sexual threesome comment and his threat to have Carter’s truck towed. Paula testified that appellant and Carter became angry and made threatening comments about wanting to “take care” of Johnson. Rossbach attempted to calm them down, but when Paula left at about 2:15 p.m., both were still “smoldering .” Rossbach testified that appellant said something about beating Johnson. At trial, appellant and Carter both denied making threats.

Appellant, Carter, and Rossbach testified that after Paula left, they drove to Johnson’s home to tow Carter’s pickup truck. When they arrived, Johnson was drinking whiskey and they went into his home and drank beer. Johnson joined them in towing the pickup truck back to their trailer where they drank more beer. Appellant, Carter and Johnson then left in appellant’s van to drive Johnson home.

Jennifer Hensel Dumont and Charlotte Wilson, friends of Johnson, became alarmed that evening and the next day because Johnson’s telephone line was busy. They went to his home and found the curtains open and the lights on, but Johnson’s horse had not been fed. They called Johnson’s boss, who went in and found the telephone off the hook but the premises otherwise undisturbed. Dumont and Wilson then went to the home of appellant and Carter to ask whether they had seen Johnson. They testified that Carter and appellant did not ask them inside, appellant did most of the talking, and Carter looked at him for approval to speak. A police investigator also testified that appellant and Carter appeared to look at one another for confirmation when interviewed shortly after the disappearance.

In an interview at the police station on November 15, 1996, appellant related that Johnson had told him he had a crush on him and it was “seriously gross.” Appellant told police there were no problems after he told Johnson he was straight, but appellant stated he had been angry about being asked to leave Johnson’s home in October. Rossbach later testified that she and appellant were not angry about having to stay in the uncomfortable tent camper when Johnson told them to leave his home, but that Carter was upset about it.

Nothing suspicious was found in the police search of the trailer where appellant, Carter, and Rossbach were living, but a search of appellant’s van approximately two weeks after Johnson’s disappearance revealed that the rear of the van had been cleaned in contrast to the dirty condition of the rest of the van. A chemical test revealed traces of blood on the side moldings of the van, the back walls, and the carpet towards the rear hatch, but investigators were unable to obtain a sample for further analysis.

Months later, in April of 1997, a torso identified through genetic testing as Johnson’s was found on a bank of the Crow Wing River south of Park Rapids. The head, hands and feet of the body had been amputated. At trial, the medical examiner testified that the only wounds to the torso were at the points of amputation, and the amputations appeared to have been done with a knife and an instrument similar to a splitting maul or axe after the victim’s death. Test results showed that Johnson had been drinking prior to the time of his death.

Evidence of two other crimes was admitted as Spreigi evidence in appellant’s trial. In the early morning hours of June 22, 1997, appellant and Carter robbed a liquor store/bar in Hackensack, Minnesota. Two liquor store employees testified that they were getting ready to close for the night when a man matching appellant’s description carrying a 9 mm. handgun came in the front door and a man matching Carter’s description carrying a sawed-off shotgun came in the back door. The men ordered them into the bathroom and bound their hands with duct tape. Appellant watched the employees while Carter took money that was sitting in a bag next to the cash register. Appellant testified that Ross-bach was in the van with a walkie-talkie watching the police scanner and that he and Carter both carried walkie-talkies to coordinate their entry into the building.

About two weeks later, on July 6, 1997, appellant and Carter robbed a Snappy Mart convenience store in Deming, New Mexico. A customer and a store clerk testified that a man matching appellant’s description entered the Snappy Mart carrying a handgun. He ordered them to the storeroom and forced them to kneel. A man matching Carter’s description came in with something silver in his hand that the witness thought could have been duct tape, taped the customers’ hands together and ordered the clerk to open the cash register. Carter testified that Rossbach drove the van away from the Snappy Mart after the robbery. When police began following them, appellant began shooting. Rossbach and Carter surrendered, but appellant fled to their hotel room and barricaded himself for twelve hours. A police negotiator testified that during the standoff appellant stated Carter and Rossbach were “basically innocent,” he had “dragged them into it,” “[t]hey didn’t really have much of a choice,” and that appellant wanted to die because he feared spending the rest of his life in prison.

During his imprisonment in New Mexico for the Snappy Mart robbery, Carter contacted Minnesota police authorities and asked for the reward money that had been posted for information about the murder of Greg Johnson, claiming that appellant had told him about committing the murder. At first Carter denied witnessing the murder but later admitted he was present for the shooting and dismemberment.

Carter pled guilty to second degree murder and testified for the prosecution at appellant’s trial. Carter testified that appellant and Johnson had an on-again off-again friendship, that appellant was “a little pissed” Johnson had asked them to leave his home in October before the rental unit was ready and that appellant was kind of angry about the threesome comment made by Johnson. Carter testified that when they left in appellant’s van to take Johnson home after socializing on November 11, appellant was driving, Johnson was in the front passenger seat, and Carter was in the back seat. Johnson was pestering them to go to a bar with him and they agreed but appellant then changed his mind, saying he wanted to check his marijuana plants.

Appellant drove into the Paul Bunyan State Forest and stopped at a trailhead marked by three boulders. Carter testified that appellant got out and opened the sliding side door where Carter was sitting and then opened Johnson’s door. According to Carter, appellant then drew a 9 mm. pistol from his waistband and ordered Johnson out of the van. As Johnson stumbled out of the van, appellant shot him in the back of the head. Carter testified that appellant made a remark about “de-identifying” the body and seemed excited as appellant dragged the body down the trail into the woods, stripped off the clothes and amputated Johnson’s hands, feet and head with a splitting maul from the van. Carter testified that appellant intended to burn the torso by putting brush and motor oil over the body but he didn’t attempt to light it.

Carter testified that appellant encountered some hunters as he returned to the van with the shovel and maul. The Wain family hunted for deer every fall near the area in which Carter testified the murder took place, and Timothy Wain testified that at about 5 p.m. on November 11, 1996 he heard a shot from the area described by Carter. Timothy and Samuel Wain testified that they stowed their guns at their campsite and walked over to inform the shooter that hunting was not allowed on that side of the road. Both described a brief encounter with a male, reluctant to talk, standing next to a van in the area described by Carter. When presented with a photographic lineup by police, both identified appellant as the man they had seen on the evening of November 11, 1996. They were unable to identify appellant at trial, however.

Carter testified that after the hunters left, appellant placed Johnson’s head, hands and feet in cardboard beer boxes and carried them back to the van leaving Johnson’s torso on the trail. Carter testified that appellant then drove to a bridge over the Potato River. Appellant and Carter put bricks from the back of the van into some garbage bags appellant had in the van and put the head in one bag, the hands in a second bag, and the feet in a third bag. Carter testified that appellant threw the bags into the river, and he and appellant then drove to Cedar Lake and burned Johnson’s clothes, the maul and the shovel, and discarded the remaining metal items in a nearby swamp. They then drove to Johnson’s home where appellant entered through a window and knocked Johnson’s phone off the hook. After leaving Johnson’s house they went home, took showers and appellant did some laundry.

Carter also testified that later that night they returned to the murder scene in the dark. Appellant rolled the torso onto a plastic sheet and tied a large rock onto Johnson’s chest with rope from his van. They loaded the body into the back of the van, drove to a bridge over the Crow Wing River and together they lifted it over the rail and threw it into the water. Later they burned the plastic sheet that was used to hold the body at a fire pit near the home of Carter’s mother. Carter testified that when police questioned them two days later, Carter told police only what appellant directed him to say and that after talking with police, they drove past the place on the Potato River where the head, hands, and feet had been discarded and saw that the bag containing the head had surfaced. Appellant retrieved the head and they threw it out the window of the van into a ditch alongside a minimum maintenance road somewhere outside Walker, Minnesota.

Police investigators testified that the head was never found but a blood stain was identified on the railing of the bridge over the Crow Wing River where Carter said they had dumped Johnson’s torso. When the torso was found, it was bound with nylon rope in a manner suggesting that a large object had been tied to it. Police found a rock on the river bottom in the vicinity of the torso that was free of moss, unlike the surrounding rocks, suggesting it might not have been there long and it may have been tied to the torso to keep it submerged. Police found burned foliage and two plastic caps like those found on oil containers where Carter testified they attempted to burn the torso.

Appellant testified and admitted he was present when the murder occurred but that it was Carter who told him to drive to the forest, Carter who pulled the trigger, Carter who dismembered the body, and Carter who decided how and where to dispose of the body. In his testimony he claimed that he was exhausted and weak the afternoon of November 11,1996 after a hospitalization on November 9, and that he stopped the van at the particular point in the park only because he wanted to relieve himself. He heard the passenger side door and the sliding door open, and then the gun shot, but he and Carter often shot at targets in the woods and he claimed he did not realize Johnson was dead until he walked around the van and saw Carter standing over Johnson with the gun.

According to appellant, Carter shot Johnson in the back of the head, dragged his body down the trail, dismembered it, and placed the head, hands and feet in garbage bags. Appellant testified that Carter tied a rock to the torso and Carter alone lifted the body from the back of the van and dumped it into the Crow Wing river. Appellant denied that they tried to burn the torso but claimed Carter unsuccessfully attempted to bury the torso in the frozen ground near the murder site. Appellant also denied that they went to Cedar Lake to burn the clothes, that they burned the plastic sheet used to hold the body, or that he did laundry the night of the murder and asserted that they didn’t have a washing machine in the trailer at that time. He testified that they disposed of Johnson’s clothing in bags in the Potato River along with the head, hands and feet and that Carter took the van the next morning and was gone all day.

Appellant’s treating physician confirmed that appellant was hospitalized on November 9, 1996 due to an adverse reaction caused by drinking alcohol while taking a prescription medication, and that appellant was admitted for observation overnight to ensure that there would be no kidney damage. The next afternoon appellant signed himself out against medical advice and walked several miles home from the hospital. The physician also testified that in his opinion appellant would likely experience muscle soreness but not extreme weakness from the drug reaction.

Appellant and Carter both testified that Johnson was killed with a 9 mm. pistol that was one of a pair of identical pistols originally purchased by Carter, and that they often pawned their guns or sold them to one another when they were short of cash. They gave conflicting testimony regarding the ownership of the 9 mm. pistol, Carter claiming he sold appellant the gun before Johnson’s murder, that it had. stayed in appellant’s possession, and that appellant was carrying the gun in his pants the evening of the murder; appellant claiming that they usually kept guns in a box between the front seats of his van, that he believed Carter had taken the gun from the box just before killing Johnson, and that the gun changed hands several times before and after the murder. Appellant also testified that after Johnson’s murder Carter hid the gun underneath the couch and appellant moved the gun when they learned the police were planning a search of their home.

In his defense appellant offered the testimony of Jeffrey Carter (Jeffrey), Carter’s nephew, who testified that when he was staying with his uncle in April or May of 1997 Carter told him that he shot Johnson and made a motion indicating that the body was then dismembered. During cross-examination Jeffrey testified that Carter said appellant encouraged Carter to shoot Johnson. Jeffrey also admitted that he was a heroin addict and had some memory problems, that he was not particularly close with Carter, and that he considered appellant a friend.

Appellant argues that his convictions for first- and second-degree murder are based on insufficient evidence as a matter of law because the only direct evidence of his active participation in the murder was the insufficiently corroborated testimony of his accomplice, Carter, and the evidence was equally consistent with the defense theory that he was an unwilling spectator to the murder. Minn.Stat. § 634.04 (2000). Appellant concedes that “a person’s presence, companionship and conduct before and after an offense are relevant circumstances from which a person’s criminal intent may be inferred,” State v. Ostrem, 535 N.W.2d 916, 924 (Minn.1995), but asserts that the evidence here establishes only his presence at the scene of the crime and not criminal culpability. Appellant argues that he and Carter often drove to Paul Bunyan State Forest, they had equal access to one another’s weapons, and the evidence that he lied to police and helped clean his van after Johnson’s murder is only consistent with guilt as an accomplice after the fact. Appellant argues that the evidence of motive is weak and applies equally to Carter because both were asked to leave Johnson’s home in October and Johnson’s sexual threesome comment insulted both of them.

Appellant also argues that the trial court erred in allowing the state to introduce testimony regarding the two armed robberies because it tended to show that appellant is an unsavory character and that he has a propensity for criminal activity, an improper use of Spreigl evidence. City of St. Paul v. Greene, 238 Minn. 202, 206, 56 N.W.2d 423, 426 (1952) (“Evidence tending to show only propensity or disposition is inadmissible under any statement of the rule”). Even if admitted for a proper purpose, appellant maintains that the testimony regarding the robberies was irrelevant and immaterial because the circumstances of the robberies were not sufficiently similar to the circumstances of the charged crime with respect to location, motive and modus operandi.

The state argues that Carter’s testimony was sufficiently corroborated by appellant’s own testimony confirming many of the details of the murder, other witness testimony, and the physical evidence, and that evidence corroborating the testimony of an accomplice need not establish a pri-ma facie case of appellant’s guilt. State v. Adams, 295 N.W.2d 527, 533 (Minn.1980). The state further argues that appellant’s anger and threats against Johnson hours before the murder provide evidence of motive, there is clear evidence of appellant’s premeditation and culpability from his own testimony that he drove Johnson to the remote scene of the murder in the van loaded with the materials used to dismember and-dispose of the body, that he was present when Johnson was murdered and dismembered, and that he drove the van to various locations to dispose of the body and conceal the crime. On this evidence, the state maintains, the jury could reasonably have found that appellant had motive and opportunity to kill Johnson and the murder was premeditated.

As to the • Spreigl evidence, the state responds that evidence of these crimes was properly- admitted to show appellant’s ongoing criminal association and active, substantial cooperation in criminal activity with Carter, and was relevant and material to rebut appellant’s defense theory that he did not actively participate in the murder. The state also contends that it assisted the state in meeting its burden of proving that appellant played an intentional and knowing role in Johnson’s death. The state notes that the trial court gave the standard cautionary jury instructions during trial and in final instructions to the jury. See State v. Lynch, 590 N.W.2d 75, 81 (Minn.1999) (stating that cautionary-instructions based on CRIMJIG 2.01 and CRIMJIG 3.16 “assured that the jury did not give improper weight to the evidence”)

As a preliminary matter, we address appellant’s claim that his conviction should be reviewed under the standard applicable to a conviction based on circumstantial evidence. Appellant argues this standard is applicable because Carter’s testimony that appellant actively participated in the murder was corroborated only by circumstantial evidence. We disagree. It is well-settled that in reviewing the sufficiency of the corroborating evidence of an accomplice’s testimony, we review the evidence just as we would on a sufficiency challenge — in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and with all conflicts in the evidence resolved in favor of the verdict. State v. Norris, 428 N.W.2d 61, 66 (Minn.1988).

As to appellant’s argument that Carter’s testimony is insufficiently corroborated to support his conviction, we have held that accomplice testimony may be untrustworthy because of the risk that “[t]he accomplice may testify against another in the hope of or upon a promise of immunity or clemency or to satisfy other self-serving or malicious motives.” State v. Shoop, 441 N.W.2d 475, 479 (Minn.1989). Therefore, “corroborative evidence supporting the testimony of an accomplice must be ‘weighty enough to restore confidence in the accomplice’s testimony, confirming its truth and pointing to the defendant’s guilt in some substantial way.’ ” State v. Hooper, 620 N.W.2d 31, 39 (Minn.2000) (quoting Norris, 428 N.W.2d at 66-67).

The testimony and conduct of the accused and evidence linking the accused to the crime may lend credibility to accomplice testimony, State v. Adams, 295 N.W.2d 527, 533 (Minn.1980), and evidence of the accused’s relationship with the accomplice may also be relevant and material corroborative evidence:

Corroborating evidence may be secured from the defendant’s association with those involved in the crime in such a way as to suggest joint participation, as well as from the defendant’s opportunity and motive to commit the crime and his proximity to the place where the crime was committed.

Adams, 295 N.W.2d at 533 (citation omitted).

Appellant further asserts that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support his conviction. On a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine “whether, on facts in the record and legitimate inferences drawn therefrom, a jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty.” State v. Ashby, 567 N.W.2d 21, 27 (Minn.1997).

Carter’s testimony regarding the time, place, manner of death, and the methods used to dispose of the body and conceal the crime are more than sufficiently corroborated. Appellant’s own testimony corroborated Carter’s account in several instances and provided evidence of appellant’s guilt by confirming that appellant was present at the time of the murder and appellant drove Johnson to the scene in his vehicle loaded with the splitting maul, beer boxes, garbage bags, bricks and rope used to dismember and dispose of the body. Appellant’s testimony also corroborates Carter’s account of the location of the murder, the fatal shot to the back of Johnson’s head from the 9 mm. pistol, the dismemberment with the splitting maul, the disposal of Johnson’s head, hands and feet in the Potato River in garbage bags filled with bricks from the back of the van and the dumping of the torso into the Crow Wing River after lifting it onto the railing of the bridge.

Appellant also confirmed that the sliding side passenger door of the van next to where Carter was sitting could not be opened from the inside at the time of the murder because the handle was broken, but failed to explain how Carter got out of the van to murder Johnson if, as appellant claimed, he was not let out by appellant. The physical examination of the torso confirmed Carter’s testimony that they drank with Johnson that afternoon and dismembered his body after his death with a splitting maul. The recovery of the torso on the banks of the Crow Wing River, the blood stain on the railing of the bridge over the Crow Wing, and the discovery of the bag filled with Johnson’s hands and a brick in the Potato River further corroborate Carter’s testimony of concealing the murder. The testimony of the hunter who heard the gunshot and saw appellant standing next to his van corroborates Carter’s testimony of appellant’s presence, that a single shot was fired, and that appellant was carrying tools to the van.

Other evidence supports Carter’s statements that appellant took an active role in the murder — appellant’s statements to police investigators in the days after the murder and testimony by Paula corroborate Carter’s testimony as to appellant’s anger at Johnson and possible- motives for murder; testimony of the police investigator and two of Johnson’s friends who spoke with appellant and Carter shortly after the murder corroborating Carter’s testimony that appellant decided what to say to police, and that Carter went along with the story; appellant’s denial of burning -the body contradicted by the presence of the oil caps and burned foliage at the scene; and the evidence of the weight of the torso contradicts appellant’s testimony that Carter alone lifted the torso oyer the bridge railing. Appellant’s testimony that he hid the 9 mm. pistol when they learned police would search their home further corroborates Carter’s testimony that appellant owned the gun and used it to Mil Johnson and casts doubt on appellant’s denial of these assertions, The Spreigl evidence supported the close relationship between appellant and Carter, and both Spreigl crimes were .carefully .planned and executed and provide persuasive evidence contradicting appellant’s contention that he was an innocent and unwilling witness to Johnson’s murder rather than an active participant.

As to the Spreigl crimes, admissibility is governed by Minn. R. Evid. 404(b):

Evidence of another crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.

Spreigl evidence is not admissible unless it is relevant and material to the prosecution’s case and the probative value of the evidence is not outweighed by its prejudicial nature. State v. Lynch, 590 N.W.2d 75, 80 (Minn.1999). A defendant claiming erroneous admission of other crimes evidence bears the burden of demonstrating the error and any resulting prejudice, id., and such evidentiary rulings by the trial court will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion. State v. Scruggs, 421 N.W.2d 707, 715 (Minn.1988).

The relevance of the Spreigl evidence here rests substantially in its demonstration of the nature of the accomplice relationship between Carter and appellant and its materiality in rebutting the defense theory that appellant was an innocent bystander. We have upheld admission where the circumstances of the prior crime were not identical to the charged offense but the “relevance of the evidence was otherwise clear.” Lynch, 590 N.W.2d at 81 (citations omitted). The other crimes evidence admitted here was relevant to the prosecution’s case to establish that appellant and Carter worked together closely to coordinate their criminal activity. The evidence was important to the prosecution’s case because it was not only material but also the most relevant evidence that appellant and Carter were accomplices in criminal activities. Its probative value clearly outweighed any potential prejudicial effect. We therefore hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the Spreigl evidence.

Based on the ample evidence of appellant’s involvement in the murder, the dismemberment of Johnson’s body, concealing the crime and the relationship of appellant and Carter as accomplices in crime, a reasonable jury could well find beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was guilty of first-degree murder in Johnson’s death.

Affirmed.

RUSSELL A. ANDERSON, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

PAUL H. ANDERSON, J.

(concurring).

I concur with the majority’s holding that Nelson’s conviction should be affirmed. However, I write separately to express my concern about'the last issue — the admission of other crimes evidence against Nelson. While there is substantial evidence of Nelson’s participation in Johnson’s murder such that the admission of the other crimes evidence is harmless, the aggravated robberies were not sufficiently similar to Johnson’s murder to justify the admission.

Evidence of participation in other crimes, or Spreigl evidence, is not admissible for the purpose of showing that the defendant acted in conformity with character and thus, such evidence is only admissible if the other crime is “sufficiently or substantially similar to the charged offense — determined by time, place or mo-dus operandi.” State v. Lynch, 590 N.W.2d 75, 80-81 (Minn.1999). Looking at the time, place, and modus operandi of the aggravated robberies as compared to Johnson’s murder illustrates that there is almost no similarity between the crimes and certainly not enough to classify the crimes as “substantially similar.” Pecause of this lack of similarity, the robberies should not have been used in an attempt to establish that Nelson and Carter had a cooperative criminal relationship or worked closely to coordinate their criminal activity.

Johnson’s murder took place seven months before the first aggravated robbery. Neither of the aggravated robberies occurred in Park Rapids or the Paul Bunyan State Forest, where the murder took place, and the second robbery did not even occur in Minnesota. The modus operandi of the Spreigl crimes bears no similarity to the murder, except in the fact that a weapon was used. The testimony presented establishes that only Carter and Nelson participated in Johnson’s murder, while Carter, Nelson, and Rossbach all participated in the robberies. The robberies were carefully planned, involving walkie-talkies, duct tape to tie store employees, and a get-away vehicle. In contrast, according to both Carter and Nelson, the murder did not involve any advanced coordination between the two men or any coordination during the killing itself. Both Carter and Nelson also testified to the other’s inability to dispose of Johnson’s torso (either through burning or burying), suggesting that the disposal of the body had not been well-planned. The close proximity of the hunters and the failure of Carter and Nelson to plan for this contingency, as they did with the police scanner in the robberies, also suggests different levels of preparation and modus operandi.

The danger of the admission of Spreigl evidence is that the jury will “convict [the defendant] ba,sed on their assessment of him as a person or based on what he has done in the past.” State v. King, 622 N.W.2d 800, 810-11 n. 6 (Minn.2001) (quoting United States v. Bahe, 40 F.Supp.2d 1802, 1312 (D.N.M.1998)). To avoid this possibility, the benefit of the doubt on the admissibility of Spreigl evidence is given to the defendant and the evidence is excluded. Lynch, 590 N.W.2d at 80. Therefore, I conclude that the district court committed an error, albeit a harmless error, when it admitted the evidence of the aggravated robberies at Nelson’s trial.

      . Appellant was found guilty of aiding and abetting first- and second-degree murder as defined by Minn.Stat. §§ 609.185(1) (2000) and 609.19, subd. 1(1) (2000), respectively. “A person is criminally liable for a crime committed by another if the person intentionally aids, advises, hires, counsels, or conspires with or otherwise procures the other to commit the crime.” Minn.Stat. § 609.05, subd. 1 (2000).

      . Evidence of other crimes committed by the defendant in a criminal proceeding is referred to in Minnesota as Spreigi evidence after our decision in State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 139 N.W.2d 167 (1965).

      . Carter testified that the sliding side passenger door of the van could not be opened from the inside at the time of the murder because the handle was broken. This was corroborated by the testimony of appellant and a police investigator.

      . Minn.Stat. § 634.04 provides:
      A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice, unless it is corroborated by such other evidence as tends to convict the defendant of the commission of the offense, and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof.

      . 10 Minn. Dist. Judges Ass'n, Minnesota Practice — Jury Instruction Guides, Criminal, CRIMJIG' 2.01 (3d ed.1990) was read to the jury before testimony regarding the Hacken-sack incident was introduced. The trial court instructed:
      [T]he State is about to introduce evidence of an occurrence on June 22, 1997 at Hack-ensack, Minnesota. This evidence is being offered for the limited purpose of assisting you in determining whether the defendant committed those acts with which the defendant is charged in the indictment.
      The defendant is, not being tried for and may not be convicted of any offense other than the charged offenses. You are not to convict the defendant on the basis of any occurrence on June 22, 1997 at Hacken-sack, Minnesota. To do so might result in unjust double punishment.

        The instruction was repeated before the evidence of the July 6 and 7 occurrence at Denting, New Mexico was offered.
      10 Minn. Dist. Judges Ass'n, Minnesota Practice — Jury Instruction Guides, Criminal, CRIMJIG 3.16 (3d ed.1990) was read to the jury by the trial court at the close of the case:
      The State has introduced evidence of an occurrence on June 22, 1997, at Hacken-sack, Minnesota. As I told you at the time that this evidence was offered,* * * it was admitted for the limited purpose of assisting you in determining whether the defendant committed those acts with which the Defendant is charged in this indictment. The defendant is not being tried for and may not be convicted of any offense other than the charged offenses. You are not to convict the Defendant on the basis of the June 22, 1997 occurrence in Hackensack Minnesota. To do so might result in unjust double punishment.
      The trial court then repeated the instruction in regard to the July 6 and 7 occurrence at Deming, New Mexico.

      . A conviction based on circumstantial evidence is reviewed to determine whether “the circumstances form 'a complete chain which, in light of the evidence as a whole, leads so directly to the guilt of the accused as to exclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, any reasonable inference other than that of guilt.’ " State v. Bias, 419 N.W.2d 480, 484 (Minn.1988) (citation omitted).

      . In order to safeguard against the improper use of other crimes evidence, procedural requirements have been established such as the use of cautionary instructions. State v. Shannon, 583 N.W.2d 579, 583-84 (Minn.1998). Notice that the prosecution intends to use the evidence, indication by the prosecution regarding what the evidence is being offered to prove, and a clear and convincing showing that defendant actually participated in the other crime or bad act to be introduced are also required. State v. Lynch, 590 N.W.2d 75, 80 (Minn.1999). Appellant does not assert failure to comply with any of these requirements. The cautionary instructions were agreed upon by the parties and provided to the jury by the court. The state gave ample notice of its intention to offer the Spreigl evidence when it brought its motion in limine prior to jury selection. Appellant had been convicted of the Deming robbery at the time of trial, and there was clear and convincing evidence that appellant had also committed the Hackensack robbery.

      . The Spreigl testimony that appellant brandished the 9 mm. pistol during the robberies to intimidate the victims and shot at police following the Deming robbery further weakens appellant's description of himself as a frightened bystander to the murder, and lends support to Carter's testimony that appellant wielded the 9 mm. pistol in Johnson’s murder. Appellant’s statements during the standoff that he believed he would spend the rest of his life in jail and that Carter and Rossbach were “basically innocent” also lend further credibility to Carter’s testimony that appellant was culpable for Johnson’s murder.