author: GILDEA, Justice.

text:
    STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Robert M. HUGHES, Appellant.
    No. A07-144.
    Supreme Court of Minnesota.
    May 22, 2008.

      John B. Galus, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, MN, for Respondent.
    Lydia Maria Villalva Lijo, Assistant State Public Defender, St. Paul, MN, for Appellant.
   OPINION

GILDEA, Justice.

Following a jury trial in Freeborn County District Court, appellant Robert Michael Hughes was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and second-degree intentional murder for the shooting death of his wife, Tammy Hughes. Appellant filed a direct appeal to this court, arguing that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to prove the element of premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the district court’s jury instructions regarding first-degree premeditated murder and second-degree intentional murder constituted plain error that entitles him to a new trial. Appellant also presents additional arguments in a pro se supplemental brief. We affirm.

The evidence at trial showed that appellant and Tammy Hughes married in 1996 and that they had two children. The family lived in Albert Lea, Minnesota. At trial, the State presented evidence showing that the couple’s marriage had deteriorated in the weeks preceding Tammy’s death. As a result, Tammy separated from appellant on May 20, 2005, and on May 23, she contacted an attorney to begin dissolution proceedings.

The evidence showed that appellant was distraught over Tammy’s decision to leave. On May 24, the day before the shooting, appellant lunched with his former employer, who described appellant as “very distraught,” crying, hunched over, and mumbling. During their lunch, appellant said that he and Tammy had discussed their children and marriage that day, and that “he was very concerned that she was going to take the kids away from him.” Appellant also spoke for 2-and-a-half hours with a childhood friend that same day. During this conversation, appellant became so upset that the friend asked if he was having thoughts of suicide. That night, appellant spoke to Tammy’s mother and said that “he wanted to know what he could do” to get Tammy back; Tammy’s mother told appellant that the relationship was over.

The next day, May 25, Tammy met with her attorney at 8 a.m. She indicated during their conversation that she wanted custody of the couple’s two young children who, at the time, were staying in the family home with appellant. She informed her attorney that she planned to obtain paperwork and information from appellant over the noon lunch hour and gauge his reaction regarding the custody situation.

Tammy left the meeting with her attorney and went to work. Her coworkers reported that she was “in a pretty good mood” when she arrived at the office. The staff ordered pizza to be delivered for lunch between 12:15 and 12:30 p.m. that day, and a coworker tried to persuade Tammy to stay for it. But after phoning appellant, Tammy told her coworker, “I have to go right now, * * * he’s in a giving mood and I don’t want to agitate him, and he was very adamant, he said you have to come right now, right now, I’m going to be busy at one o’clock.” Tammy left the office at 11:45 a.m.

The State offered testimony from two of the Hugheses’ neighbors that they heard shots fired around noon on May 25. J.D., the next-door neighbor, testified that two shots were fired within 30 seconds to 1 minute of each other. J.D. said that 5 minutes after the second shot, she heard the tires squealing on appellant’s van, and looked out her window to see appellant driving away from the house. K.K., who lived across the street and knew that the couple was having marital problems, testified that the shots were probably fired within a 5-minute span. In response to the noise, K.K. looked out her window and saw appellant “running out of his house.” She saw him jump in his van, back up out of the driveway, almost hit a car in the street, and then tear off. K.K. also saw Tammy’s van parked on the street. She phoned the police when Tammy failed to come out of the house. K.K. testified that 10 to 15 minutes after appellant left, he “just pulled in the driveway like nothing was wrong” and “unlocked the front door and just walked in.”

Albert Lea police officers arrived at the Hughes home shortly after noon in response to K.K.’s call. They entered through the front door and went into the living room, where they found Tammy’s body on the floor. She had suffered two shotgun wounds, and was dead when police arrived. Police found a spent shotgun cartridge casing located near Tammy’s right leg and another near the entry to the kitchen. A 12-gauge pump shotgun was propped against the kitchen wall.

Police discovered appellant in the backyard near a fire pit, where a fire had just started to burn. He was holding a torch attached to a propane tank, and a gas can was nearby. Appellant was crying and “wailing loudly” when officers apprehended him, but he was cooperative during the arrest. Because of his behavior, police had appellant taken to the local hospital for examination. Appellant cried and sobbed during the drive to the hospital.

Appellant’s emergency room nurse described him as oriented and cooperative during his examination. He was moaning with his eyes closed and making facial grimaces, but did not cry. While at the hospital, appellant said to a detective “that he was sorry he screwed up.” His nurse confirmed that appellant said, “I’m sorry, I messed up, I’m sorry,” and that he volunteered this comment without being asked to do anything or answer any questions. Medical personnel found nothing physically wrong with appellant. Police observed no blood on his hands, arms, or clothes at the hospital, and no bloody clothes were found at the house.

Dr. Kelly Mills, who performed the autopsy on Tammy’s body, explained at trial that .Tammy was shot twice and that she sustained three different injuries as a result. Tammy was shot first in the back, through her left shoulder area. The second shot came from the front and entered Tammy’s body through her left breast. Dr. Mills testified that the first shot to Tammy’s back was the fatal shot, and that it would have taken between 1 to 2 and 10 to 20 minutes for Tammy to die after that shot. Between the first and second shots, Tammy would have made raspy or “gurgling respiratory sounds” as she tried to breathe and her blood mixed with the air. Based on the nature of the second injury, Dr. Mills said that Tammy was alive at the time of the second shot. The second shot sped her death and Tammy either died on her back or was turned over onto her back shortly after death.

The State also presented forensic evidence. Forensic scientist and firearms examiner Stephanie Eckerman testified that the muzzle of the shotgun was 6 to 12 feet away when Tammy was shot in the back, and that the muzzle of the shotgun was 1 foot to 2 feet away from Tammy when she was shot in the left breast. Bureau of Criminal Apprehension forensic scientist Glenn Langenburg analyzed blood spatter in the living room of the Hughes house. He testified that Tammy was kneeling or crouching when she was shot and that her back was toward the kitchen and her face toward the cabinets along the wall of the living room. Finally, regarding forensics, Eckerman confirmed that the two shells that were found on the floor of the Hughes home — one in the living room and one in the kitchen — were fired by the shotgun police found propped up against the wall in the kitchen.

The State presented evidence that appellant purchased the 12-gauge shotgun on January 31, 2004, and that he typically stored it in the basement of the home. A neighbor and friend of appellant’s testified that he was in the Hughes home “[a] thousand” times during the 5 years that he lived across the street from them. He was with appellant when he bought the shotgun, and said that the shotgun was upstairs for a week or so after appellant first purchased it; after that he only saw the shotgun upstairs when the two men were going out shooting.

The jury found appellant guilty of first-degree premeditated murder and second-degree intentional murder. The district court convicted appellant of first-degree murder and sentenced him to life in prison. This direct appeal followed.

I.

We turn first to appellant’s argument that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to prove the element of premeditation. When the question is the sufficiency of evidence, “we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and will assume that the jury believed the State’s witnesses and disbelieved contrary evidence.” State v. Moore, 481 N.W.2d 355, 360 (Minn.1992). The issue on appeal is whether the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the jury to reasonably conclude that appellant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of first-degree premeditated murder. The jury is in the best position to weigh the credibility of the evidence and thus determine which witnesses to believe and how much weight to give their testimony. Id.

The jury found appellant guilty of premeditating the murder of his wife. Minnesota Statutes § 609.185(a)(1) (2006) provides that whoever “causes the death of a human being with premeditation and with intent to effect the death of the person or of another” is guilty of first-degree murder. First-degree murder is distinguished from second-degree intentional murder because of the element of premeditation. State v. Leake, 699 N.W.2d 312, 326 n. 10 (Minn.2005); see Minn.Stat. § 609.19, subd. 1(1) (2006). Premeditation means “to consider, plan or prepare for, or determine to commit, the act * * * prior to its commission.” Minn.Stat. § 609.18 (2006). While “[a] finding of premeditation does not require proof of extensive planning or preparation to kill,” or “require any specific period of time for deliberation,” State v. Cooper, 561 N.W.2d 175, 180 (Minn.1997), the State “must prove that some appreciable period of time passed after the defendant formed the intent to kill, during which the statutorily required consideration, planning, preparation, or determination took place,” State v. Moua, 678 N.W.2d 29, 39 (Minn.2004) (emphasis added). Because it “is a state of mind,” premeditation is “generally proven through circumstantial evidence,” and is often inferred from the totality of circumstances surrounding the killing. Leake, 699 N.W.2d at 319, 321; see also State v. Buchanan, 431 N.W.2d 542, 547 (Minn.1988).

Appellant’s argument that the evidence of premeditation was insufficient is premised on the fact that the State relied on circumstantial evidence to prove premeditation in this case. Circumstantial evidence receives “the same weight as any other evidence so long as the circumstances proved are consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis other than guilt.” Leake, 699 N.W.2d at 319. But appellant argues that the State was required to present circumstantial evidence that pointed “inescapably” to his guilt. In support of his argument, appellant relies on Bernhardt v. State, 684 N.W.2d 465 (Minn.2004), and State v. Swain, 269 N.W.2d 707 (Minn.1978). These cases do not support the conclusion that the State’s burden in a circumstantial evidence case is something more than proof beyond all reasonable doubt.

In Bernhardt, the defendant was in custody at the time of the murder and the issue was whether he directed others to commit the murder. 684 N.W.2d at 469-71, 477-78. We said that while the evidence was consistent with the State’s theory that the defendant had directed the murder, the evidence was also consistent with the “rational hypothesis” that an acquaintance, who had “openly talked about the possibility of murdering [the victim],” had directed the murder. Id. at 478. In addition, we concluded that the evidence was also consistent with the reasonable hypothesis that the group that committed the murder had acted alone. Id. Because the State’s evidence did not exclude what we termed these “other rational hypotheses,” we reversed. Id. at 479.

Similarly, in Swain, we reversed a conviction for premeditated murder. 269 N.W.2d at 714. The State argued that premeditation was proven because the defendant had threatened to kill the victim, hit her repeatedly, and struck her from behind. Id. at 713. We held that the threat was too remote, having been made 10 months before the murder, to be probative of a plan to murder. Id. We also said that “the fact that [the victim] was struck from behind does not lead to the inference of planning. It is just as likely that she was struck impulsively as she turned her back.” Id. Finally, we held that the fact that the victim was struck multiple times was not sufficient by itself to support an inference of premeditation where there was no evidence presented of “prior planning” activity. Id. at 713-14. In reversing the conviction, we applied the rule recognized above, that in a circumstantial evidence case, “all the circumstances proved must be consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of his guilt.” Id. at 712.

As these cases recognize, the State’s burden is not to remove all doubt, but to remove all reasonable doubt. See State v. Taylor, 650 N.W.2d 190, 206 (Minn.2002) (quoting State v. Ostrem, 535 N.W.2d 916, 923 (Minn.1995) for the proposition that “possibilities of innocence do not require reversal of a jury verdict so long as the evidence taken as a whole makes such theories seem unreasonable”). We apply the same rule in this case and examine the circumstantial evidence in accord with the three categories of evidence our precedent recognizes as relevant to an inference of premeditation: planning activity, motive, and the nature of the killing. Moore, 481 N.W.2d at 361.

A. Planning Activity

Premeditation may be shown by evidence that the defendant planned his attack. Planning activity concerns “facts about how and what the defendant did prior to the actual killing which show he was engaged in activity directed toward the killing.” Moore, 481 N.W.2d at 361 (internal quotation omitted). It includes prior possession of the murder weapon by the defendant, sneaking up on the prospective victim, or taking the prospective victim to a location where others are unlikely to intrude. Id.; see also State v. Flores, 418 N.W.2d 150, 158 (Minn.1988) (stating that retrieving the gun between an altercation with the victim and the shooting, as well as pausing between shots, indicated planning). The State argues that appellant’s decision to retrieve the shotgun from storage in the basement is evidence of planning activity. We have recognized in several cases that procurement of a weapon constitutes evidence of premeditation. See, e.g., Bangert v. State, 282 N.W.2d 540, 544 (Minn.1979) (stating that premeditation includes procuring a firearm from another part of the house and walking down a hallway to kill the victim); State v. Merrill, 274 N.W.2d 99, 112 (Minn.1978) (stating that the defendant’s “actions in going into the kitchen, obtaining the knife, returning to the bedroom, and stabbing the victim numerous times reasonably impl[ed] that he had determined to kill [the victim]”).

Appellant argues that notwithstanding the authorities discussed above, his possession of the shotgun for recreational purposes is irrelevant to the determination of premeditation and that the State failed to present evidence about precisely when the shotgun was moved upstairs and loaded. But the State presented evidence that appellant kept the shotgun in his basement closet. The State also proved that appellant knew in advance that Tammy was coming over to the house. In fact, appellant insisted that Tammy come to the house right away after her call. From this evidence, the jury could infer that after appellant directed Tammy to come right over to the house, he retrieved the shotgun from the basement. The evidence therefore is consistent with planning activity.

B. Motive

Motive may be inferred from the defendant’s prior relationship and conduct with the victim. Moore, 481 N.W.2d at 361. Such evidence includes “prior threats by the defendant to do violence to the victim, plans or desires of the defendant which would be facilitated by the death of the victim, and prior conduct of the victim known to have angered the defendant.” Id. (internal quotation omitted); see, e.g., State v. Lodermeier, 539 N.W.2d 396, 398 (Minn.1995) (stating that the deterioration of the couple’s marriage, an argument between the defendant and victim the night before the killing, and the defendant’s anger toward the victim provided evidence of premeditation). Although there was no evidence of physical abuse and appellant made no threats to Tammy’s safety, the State presented evidence that appellant and Tammy’s marriage had deteriorated to the point of divorce; appellant was distraught about their separation and said that divorce was not an option for the couple; appellant was fearful that the divorce would lead to his loss of custody of the children; and Tammy planned to discuss child custody arrangements with appellant when she went to the house the day of her murder. That evidence provides a basis for the jury to infer that appellant’s motive for killing his wife was to prevent her from leaving him and taking the children.

C. Nature of the Killing

Finally, premeditation may be shown through evidence of the nature of the killing itself. From such evidence that “the manner of [the] killing was so particular and exacting,” the jury may infer “that the defendant must have intentionally killed according to a preconceived design.” Moore, 481 N.W.2d at 361 (internal quotation omitted). Such “evidence includes the number of wounds inflicted, infliction of wounds to vital areas, infliction of gunshot wounds from close range, passage of time between infliction of wounds, and a defendant’s concern with escape rather than with rendering aid to the victim.” State v. McArthur, 730 N.W.2d 44, 50 (Minn.2007) (concluding there was sufficient evidence of premeditation where the victim was shot from behind, in the head, and from a distance of 12 inches or less).

In this case, the evidence showed that Tammy was first shot in the back, while crouched or kneeling, and then shot at close range in the chest — both vital areas of the body. The shotgun was close to Tammy’s body when she was shot. An appreciable period of time — up to 5 minutes — elapsed between the first and second shots. Instead of rendering aid to Tammy, neighbors observed appellant fleeing quickly from the house within minutes of the shots. The nature of the killing and appellant’s behavior after the shooting support an inference of premeditation.

In sum, when we consider the evidence of appellant’s planning and motive and the evidence as to the nature of the killing, it is clear that the circumstantial evidence established beyond all reasonable doubt that appellant premeditated the murder. We therefore hold that the evidence was sufficient to prove the element of premeditation.

II.

We turn next to appellant’s argument that the district court erred by giving incomplete jury instructions on first-degree premeditated murder and second-degree intentional murder. Appellant concedes that he did not offer specific instructions that the court refused to give or object to the instructions given at trial. These failures generally constitute waiver of the right to appeal. State v. Cross, 577 N.W.2d 721, 726 (Minn.1998). Nevertheless, we may consider a plain error not previously brought to the attention of the district court if the error affects substantial rights. Minn. R.Crim. P. 31.02; see also State v. Griller, 583 N.W.2d 736, 740 (Minn.1998). Before we review unobject-ed-to error, “there must be (1) error; (2) that is plain; and (3) the error must affect substantial rights.” Griller, 583 N.W.2d at 740. If these three prongs are met, we “then assess[] whether [we] should address the error to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.” Id.

A. CRIMJIG 11.02, Instruction on First-Degree Premeditated Murder

Appellant contends that the district court erred by omitting the last paragraph of CRIMJIG 11.02. The paragraph that was not given provides:

If you have a reasonable doubt that there was premeditation, but you find that all the other elements have been proven, then the defendant is guilty of murder in the second degree. The crime of murder in the second degree differs from murder in the first degree only in that the killing was done with intent to kill another person but not with premeditation. If you find that any element other than premeditation has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is not guilty of murder.

10 Minn. Dist. Judges Ass’n, Minnesota Practice—Jury Instruction Guides, Criminal, CRIMJIG 11.02 (5th ed.2006).

Under the first and second Griller prongs, we determine whether the district court committed error that was plain by omitting the instruction. 583 N.W.2d at 740. When reviewing jury instructions, error exists “if the instructions confuse, mislead, or materially misstate the law.” State v. Smith, 674 N.W.2d 398, 401-02 (Minn.2004); see Griller, 583 N.W.2d at 740. We analyze the district court’s instructions “with the understanding that trial courts possess significant discretion in the selection of instruction language and that instructions must be read as a whole to determine whether they accurately describe the law.” Smith, 674 N.W.2d at 402.

Appellant argues that the district court was required to read the last paragraph of CRIMJIG 11.02. He relies on a comment to the JIG to support his argument: “The charge as to the lesser offense of murder in the second degree has been included because under the decision in State v. Hyleck, [286 Minn. 126, 175 N.W.2d 163 (1970)], it seems there are few cases in which murder in the second degree is not a lesser-included offense.” CRIMJIG 11.02 cmt. But the defendant in Hyleck argued against the inclusion of a lesser-included offense instruction. 286 Minn. at 139, 175 N.W.2d at 172. He was indicted only for first-degree murder, but convicted of second-degree murder. Id., 175 N.W.2d at 172. He argued that it was improper for the trial judge to submit the lesser charge to the jury, and that “the jury should have been allowed to find him guilty or not guilty of first-degree murder only.” Id. at 140, 175 N.W.2d at 172. We said that if “there was evidence from which a jury could find that defendant killed his wife with intent but without premeditation, the submission of an instruction covering second-degree murder was proper.” Id. at 139, 175 N.W.2d at 172 (emphasis added).

While we have recognized that the use of the CRIMJIGs is favored, “their use is not mandatory.” Smith, 674 N.W.2d at 401. The district court’s failure to give the entire CRIMJIG does not necessarily mean that the court erred, much less committed error that was plain. Unlike in Hyleck, appellant was charged with both first- and second-degree murder. Appellant concedes that the district court properly instructed the jury on the elements of second-degree murder, but hinges his argument on the court’s failure to emphasize that premeditation is — as appellant characterizes it — the “critical distinction” between the two murder charges. But the court did emphasize the distinction between first- and second-degree murder when it told the jury that for second-degree murder, “[i]t is not necessary that the defendant’s act be premeditated.” The court also told the jury to consider the charges separately. Finally, the court stressed the State’s burden by saying that the jury must find appellant not guilty if the State failed to prove any of the elements of first-degree murder.

The district court cannot be said to have confused or materially misstated the law when it omitted the last paragraph of CRIMJIG 11.02. We therefore hold that appellant did not prove that the district court committed plain error when it did not give the last paragraph of CRIMJIG 11.02 as part of its instructions to the jury.

B. CRIMJIG 3.20, Pattern Jury Instruction on Lesser Crimes

Appellant also argues that the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury regarding lesser crimes, as provided in CRIMJIG 3.20, which provides:

The law provides that upon the prosecution of a person for a crime, if the person is not guilty of that crime, the person may be guilty of a lesser crime.
(A) (The) lesser crime(s) in this case (is)(are):-
The presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt apply to .these lesser crimes. If you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant has committed each element of the lesser crime, but you have a reasonable doubt about any different element of the greater crime, the defendant is guilty only of the lesser crime.

10 Minn. Dist. Judges Ass’n, Minnesota Practice—Jury Instruction Guides, Criminal, CRIMJIG 3.20 (5th ed.2006). Because the court did not give CRIMJIG 3.20, appellant argues that “the jury was not clearly instructed that second-degree murder was a lesser offense” of first-degree murder.

We first consider whether it was plain error for the district court to fail to sua sponte read CRIMJIG 3.20. Griller, 583 N.W.2d at 740. The jury instructions must adequately state the law, and appellant concedes that the district court properly instructed the jury as to the elements of first- and second-degree murder. Thus, unless we have required district courts to sua sponte read CRIMJIG 3.20 when instructing a jury as to first- and second-degree murder, there is no plain error here. Cf. State v. Reed, 737 N.W.2d 572, 584 (Minn.2007) (stating that because a district court is required by case law to sua sponte deliver an accomplice corroboration instruction to the jury, failure to give it was error which was plain).

Appellant relies on State v. Bolte, 530 N.W.2d 191 (Minn.1995), to support his argument that the district court was required to read CRIMJIG 3.20 in this case. The defendant in Bolte was convicted of both premeditated first-degree murder and intentional second-degree murder. Id. at 193. The district court read the full CRIMJIG 11.02, but not CRIMJIG 3.20. Id. at 199. Defense counsel did not request CRIMJIG 3.20, and we held that the trial court did not commit plain error by failing to sua sponte read the instruction because the court “expressly instructed the jury pursuant to CRIMJIG 11.02, that if it had a reasonable doubt on the issue of premeditation, but found that all the other elements of premeditated murder were present, the jury should find [the] defendant guilty of second-degree intentional murder.” Id. We agreed with the comment to CRIMJIG 3.20 that “ ‘[i]n appropriate cases it may be necessary to use this instruction even though the lesser-included offenses are charged as counts in the complaint.’ ” Id. (quoting CRIMJIG 3.20 cmt.). But the Bolte court did not require district courts to read the last paragraph of CRIMJIG 11.02 and/or CRIMJIG 3.20 when instructing a jury as to first- and second-degree murder. Cf. State v. Fields, 730 N.W.2d 777, 784 (Minn.2007) (holding that prosecutorial error was not established because prior case law “did not clearly indicate that failure to satisfy its procedural requirements * * * would result in the evidence being ruled inadmissible”).

When read in their entirety, the district court’s instructions accurately described the elements of first- and second-degree murder. The court also highlighted the distinction between the two murder charges and emphasized the State’s burden of proof. Finally, the court instructed the jury that if the jury found that the State did not meet its burden of proof on any element of a charge, that the jury’s verdict as to that charge must be not guilty. Under these circumstances, we hold that appellant did not show that the court committed plain error in failing to sua sponte read CRIMJIG 3.20.

III.

Appellant raises additional issues in his pro se brief, which include: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel/access to the courts; (2) invalid warrantless search of the Hughes home; (3) violation of his Miranda rights; (4) erroneously admitted relationship evidence regarding “controlling” behavior; (5) inflammatory firearms demonstration by Stephanie Eckerman in the courtroom; (6) legally inconsistent convictions for both first- and second-degree murder; (7) incorrect sentence; and (8) reasonableness of the restitution award. The record before us does not include information about the restitution award. Accordingly, we deny that claim without prejudice to appellant’s ability to pursue it on postconviction. We have carefully considered all of appellant’s other pro se claims and hold that they are without merit.

Affirmed.

DIETZEN, J., not having been a member of this court at the time of the argument and submission, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

      . A detective found an empty gun case and many boxes of shotgun shells behind some clothing in the corner of the closet attached to the downstairs bedroom. The gun case belonged to the shotgun used to kill Tammy. No weapons or shells were found elsewhere in the house.

      . The State contends that premeditation may occur "virtually instantaneously.” We said in State v. Buchanan, 431 N.W.2d 542, 547 (Minn.1988), that "[t]he requisite plan [for premeditation] can be formed * * * virtually instantaneously.” But we have since rejected such a standard as “bhufring] the line between first and second degree murder,” and have noted that premeditation "requires some amount of time to pass between formation of the intent and the carrying out of the act.” Moore, 481 N.W.2d at 360.

      . See also State v. Chomnarith, 654 N.W.2d 660, 665 (Minn.2003) (finding premeditation existed where the defendant "obtained an industrial grade meat-cutting knife from the residence” before going to the "mouth of the driveway” and stabbing the victim to death); State v. Lodermeier, 539 N.W.2d 396, 398 (Minn.1995) (finding premeditation existed where the defendant removed the handgun from the nightstand drawer and then from its zippered case before shooting his wife); Moore, 481 N.W.2d at 361 (finding the fact that the defendant "removed the shotgun from its normal storage place under the bed, loaded it, and placed it on the shelf in the living room early on the day of the killing supported] an inference that [the] defendant planned earlier in the day to use the gun later”); Bangert v. State, 282 N.W.2d 540, 544 (Minn.1979) (finding premeditation where the defendant procured a rifle, walked down the hallway, took careful aim, and pulled the trigger three times).

      . See also State v. Goodloe, 718 N.W.2d 413, 419-20 (Minn.2006) (finding premeditation where the victim sustained three gunshot wounds to the head, one of which was inflicted from no more than 4 feet away); Chomnarith, 654 N.W.2d at 665 (finding premeditation where the defendant “obtained an industrial grade meat-cutting knife from the residence and had it with him at the mouth of the driveway where he inflicted precise wounds to vital areas of [the victim’s] body, including puncturing the lung, penetrating a rib bone, and transecting the subclavian artery”); Lodermeier, 539 N.W.2d at 398 (finding that evidence that there was a significant pause between shots and two of the three shots were fatal and fired at close range supported an inference of premeditation).

      . Appellant claims that the district court incorrectly imposed a life sentence without the possibility of parole. The district court convicted appellant under Minn.Stat. § 609.185(a)(1), and sentenced him to "life imprisonment." At sentencing, the district court said, "you will be committed to the Commissioner of Corrections * * * for the rest of your life.” The 2005 legislature amended Minn.Stat. § 609.106, subd. 2 — the statute mandating a life sentence without possibility of release for certain crimes — to include violations of Minn.Stat. § 609.185(a)(1). Act of June 2, 2005, ch. 136, art. 17, § 9, 2005 Minn. Laws 1120, 1127. That amendment became effective on August 1, 2005, and applies to crimes committed on or after that date. Because Tammy was killed before that date, the amended statute does not apply.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: ANDERSON, PAUL H., Justice.

license: Public Domain

text:
    Randy Ronell LYNCH, petitioner, Appellant, v. STATE of Minnesota, Respondent.
    No. A07-1883.
    Supreme Court of Minnesota.
    May 22, 2008.

      Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, MN, Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney’s Office, Michael Richardson, Assistant County Attorney, Minneapolis, MN, for State of Minnesota, Respondent.
    Randy Ronell Lynch, Bayport, MN, pro se.

   OPINION

ANDERSON, PAUL H., Justice.

In 1997, the Hennepin County District Court convicted Randy Ronell Lynch of first-degree felony murder. Following his conviction, Lynch directly appealed to our court, arguing that the district court erred when it denied his pretrial motion to dismiss the grand jury’s first-degree murder indictment against him. We affirmed his conviction. State v. Lynch, 590 N.W.2d 75, 77 (Minn.1999). Lynch subsequently petitioned for postconviction relief, again claiming errors in the grand jury proceedings. The postconviction court denied the petition without holding an evidentiary hearing, and Lynch now appeals. We affirm.

In 1995, appellant Randy Ronell Lynch was indicted for first-degree felony murder, in violation of Minn.Stat. §§ 609.185(3) (1996) and 609.05 (1996), for the murder of Eric Heim. Before trial, Lynch moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the State did not reveal to the grand jury that the State’s key witnesses received inducements for their testimony. After a hearing, the district court denied Lynch’s motion. Lynch petitioned the court of appeals for discretionary review of the district court’s pretrial order denying Lynch’s motion to dismiss the indictment. The court of appeals denied discretionary review. Lynch then petitioned our court for further review, which we denied.

After a trial on the merits, a Hennepin County jury found Lynch guilty of first-degree felony murder. The district court then convicted him of the offense and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Lynch filed a direct appeal, again arguing that the district court erred when it failed to dismiss his grand jury indictment because the State did not reveal to the grand jury that its key witnesses had received inducements for their testimony. We affirmed his conviction, concluding that despite errors by the State, there was sufficient probable cause to support the indictment. State v. Lynch, 590 N.W.2d 75 (Minn.1999).

Lynch subsequently filed the current petition for postconviction relief, raising the same argument as he did on direct appeal. The postconviction court concluded that the grand jury indictment issue had been fully and fairly litigated, that Lynch was fully aware of the facts of his case at the time of his direct appeal, and that Lynch failed to raise any novel claims or show why the interests of justice warranted any additional review. Accordingly, the court denied Lynch’s petition for postconviction relief, and did so without holding an evi-dentiary hearing.

When reviewing a postconviction court’s denial of relief, we examine issues of law de novo and issues of fact for sufficiency of the evidence. Leake v. State, 737 N.W.2d 531, 535 (Minn.2007). A petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing “ ‘[Unless the petition and the files and records of the proceedings conclusively show that the petitioner is entitled to no relief.’ ” Id. (quoting Minn.Stat. § 590.04, subd. 1 (2006)). Nevertheless, “an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary if the petitioner fails to allege facts that are sufficient to entitle him or her to the relief requested.” Id. Thus, the petitioner must allege “ ‘more than argumentative assertions without factual support.’ ” Id. (quoting Hodgson v. State, 540 N.W.2d 515, 517 (Minn.1995)).

When a petitioner has taken a direct appeal, “all matters raised therein, and all claims known but not raised, will not be considered upon a subsequent petition for postconviction relief.” State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252, 243 N.W.2d 737, 741 (1976). The Knaffla rule “‘applies even in postconviction proceedings raising constitutional issues of criminal procedure.’” Schleicher v. State, 718 N.W.2d 440, 445 (Minn.2006) (quoting Ferguson v. State, 645 N.W.2d 437, 448 (Minn.2002)). But we will consider a claim otherwise barred by Knaffla in two circumstances:

First, if a claim is known to a defendant at the time of direct appeal but is not raised, it will not be barred by the rule if the claim’s novelty was so great that its legal basis was not reasonably available when direct appeal was taken. * * * Second, even if the claim’s legal basis was sufficiently available, substantive review may be allowed when fairness so requires and when the petitioner did not deliberately and inexcusably fail to raise the issue on direct appeal.

Leake, 737 N.W.2d at 535 (internal citations omitted).

Lynch claims that his indictment should have been dismissed because the State failed to disclose inducements provided to witnesses who testified to the grand jury. We addressed and decided this precise issue on direct appeal and denied relief. Lynch, 590 N.W.2d at 79. Thus, we conclude that the claim is barred by Knaffla.

Moreover, Lynch’s postconviction claim is also barred by the doctrine of “law of the case.” This doctrine provides that “‘when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case.’In re Welfare of M.D.O., 462 N.W.2d 370, 375 (Minn.1990) (quoting Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618, 103 S.Ct. 1382, 75 L.Ed.2d 318 (1983)); see also State v. Bailey, 732 N.W.2d 612, 623 (Minn.2007) (applying the law of the case doctrine in a criminal case). Because on direct appeal we explicitly considered, addressed, and made a holding regarding Lynch’s current postconviction claim, we conclude that in addition to being barred by Knaffla, the claim is barred by the doctrine of “law of the case.”

Nevertheless, in his rebuttal brief, Lynch asserts that his postconviction claim differs from his direct appeal claim. Lynch states that on direct appeal, he sought relief “on the grounds that the state failed to disclose inducements of Witnesses to the Grand Jury.” Lynch asserts that his current claim is different in that he now claims that the State “violated [his] Federal Right to Due Process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and a Fair Trial under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution when [the State] knowingly used perjured testimony to obtain [Lynch’s] conviction.”

Despite Lynch’s assertion that his current claim differs from his claim on direct appeal, his petition to the postconviction court indicates otherwise. In his petition, Lynch states that the issue before the court is

whether a Grand Jury Indictment should be dismissed after the Trial Court found that the prosecutor and police had engaged in misconduct which amounted to intentionally misleading the Grand Jury with regard to material witnesses regarding offers of leniency, deals, and/or negotiations which had been entered into by the State [itself].

Both the direct appeal claim and the post-conviction claim involve the same issue of whether the indictment should have been dismissed because of the State’s failure to disclose to the grand jury inducements given to State witnesses. Thus, we conclude that Lynch’s argument that his post-conviction claim differs from his direct appeal claim lacks merit.

We conclude that Lynch’s claim that the indictment should have been dismissed has already been raised, litigated, and decided on direct appeal; therefore, it is barred by Knaffla and must be denied. Accordingly, we hold that the postconviction court did not err when it denied Lynch’s postconviction petition "without granting an evidentiary hearing.

Affirmed.

      . A detailed account of the facts surrounding the murder can be found in our opinion on Lynch’s direct appeal. See State v. Lynch, 590 N.W.2d 75 (Minn.1999).

      . We have also held that an appellant either knew or should have known at the time of trial of a claim that "the prosecution used perjured testimony to gain [the appellant’s] conviction." Hanley v. State, 534 N.W.2d 277, 279 (Minn.1995). Thus, even if Lynch’s postconviction claim that the State "knowingly used perjured testimony to obtain [Lynch’s] conviction" somehow differs from his direct appeal claim, his postconviction claim is still barred by Knaffla because he either knew or should have known about the claim at the time of his direct appeal and failed to raise it.


author: /s/Alan C. Page Associate Justice

text:
    In re Petition for REINSTATEMENT OF Steven John UGGEN, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 28869X.
    No. A07-1067.
    Supreme Court of Minnesota.
    May 27, 2008.
   ORDER

On June 11, 2002, we indefinitely suspended Steven John Uggen from the practice of law with no right to petition for reinstatement for a minimum of six months. In re Uggen, 645 N.W.2d 84 (Minn.2002). Petitioner applied for reinstatement in May 2007, and a hearing was held before a panel of the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board. The panel found that petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence he is competent and morally fit to resume the practice of law. See In re Swanson, 343 N.W.2d 662, 664 (Minn.1984) (providing that burden is on attorney to establish by clear and convincing evidence the moral fitness to resume the practice of law). The panel further found that petitioner successfully completed the professional responsibility portion of the state bar examination, satisfied continuing legal education requirements of Rule 18, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR), and paid costs under Rule 24, RLPR. Although petitioner did not comply with Rule 26, RLPR (requiring notice of suspension to clients, opposing counsel, and tribunals), at the time of his 2002 suspension, the panel expressed its belief that this failure, standing alone, should not preclude petitioner’s reinstatement. The panel recommended that petitioner be reinstated to the practice of law and be placed on unsupervised probation until such time as he resumes the practice of law, after which petitioner should be subject to supervised probation for a period of two years. The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility does not object to the panel’s recommendation.

The court has independently reviewed the file and approves the panel’s recommended disposition.

Based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, effective as of the date of filing of this order, petitioner Steven John Uggen is reinstated to the practice of law and is placed on probation, subject to the following terms and conditions:

(a) Petitioner shall cooperate fully with the Director’s office in its efforts to monitor compliance with this probation, and shall promptly respond to the Director’s correspondence by the due date. Petitioner shall cooperate with the Director’s investigation of any allegations of unprofessional conduct that may come to the Director’s attention. Upon the Director’s request, petitioner shall provide authorization for release of information and documentation to verify compliance with the terms of his probation.
(b) Petitioner shall abide by the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct.
(c) Petitioner shall notify the Director at least 30 days before he resumes the practice of law. Petitioner shall thereafter comply with the following additional terms:
(i) Petitioner shall be supervised by a licensed Minnesota attorney, appointed by the Director to monitor his compliance with the terms of his probation. At least 30 days before resuming the private practice of law, petitioner shall provide the Director with the names of three attorneys who have agreed to be nominated as his supervisor. If, after diligent effort, petitioner is unable to locate a supervisor acceptable to the Director, the Director will seek to appoint a supervisor. Until a supervisor has been appointed, petitioner shall on the first day of each month provide the Director with an inventory of his active client files described in subparagraph (ii) below. Petitioner shall also make active client files available to the Director upon request.
(ii) Petitioner shall cooperate fully with his supervisor in his efforts to monitor compliance with this probation. Petitioner shall contact the supervisor and schedule a minimum of one in-person meeting per calendar quarter. Petitioner shall submit to the supervisor an inventory of all active client files by the first day of each month during probation. With respect to each active file, the inventory shall disclose the client name, type of representation, date opened, most recent activity, next anticipated action, and anticipated closing date. Petitioner’s supervisor shall file written reports with the Director at least quarterly, or at such more frequent intervals as may reasonably be requested by the Director.
(iii) Petitioner shall initiate and maintain office procedures that ensure that he promptly responds to correspondence, telephone calls, and other important communications from clients, courts, and other persons interested in matters that petitioner is handling, and that will ensure that petitioner regularly reviews each and every file and completes legal matters on a timely basis.
(iv) If petitioner maintains a trust account, he shall maintain trust account books and records (including a checkbook register, client subsidiary ledgers, trial balances and reconciliations) in compliance with Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 115, and Appendix 1 to Minn. R. Prof. Conduct, and shall have the trust account reconciled by a certified public accountant monthly. Petitioner shall also make his trust account books and records available to the Director at such intervals as the Director deems necessary or appropriate to verify compliance.

Probation shall terminate two years after petitioner’s reinstatement or two years after petitioner resumes the practice of law, whichever is later.

BY THE COURT:

/s/Alan C. Page Associate Justice


author: ANDERSON, G. BARRY, Justice. PAGE, Justice MEYER, Justice

text:
    AUTO OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent, v. Chong Suk PERRY, Appellant.
    No. A06-1235.
    Supreme Court of Minnesota.
    May 29, 2008.

      Michael Alen Bryant, Bradshaw & Bryant, PLLC, Waite Park, MN, for Appellant.
    Judith Ann Mlinar Seeberger, Reding & Pilney PLLP, Lake Elmo, MN, for Respondent.
    Philip Andres Duran, Minneapolis, MN, for Outfront MN Amicus.
    James S. Ballentine, Schwebel, Goetz & Sieben, PA, Minneapolis, MN, for MN Assoc. for Justice Amicus.
   OPINION

ANDERSON, G. BARRY, Justice.

Appellant Chong Suk Perry applied to respondent Auto Owners Insurance Company for survivors’ economic loss benefits after her boyfriend, Daniel Savage, with whom she resided, died in a motor vehicle accident. Auto Owners denied Perry’s claim, and Perry petitioned for arbitration. After staying arbitration, the district court granted Auto Owners’ motion for summary judgment. The court of appeals held that the district court did not err in concluding that the definition of “dependent” in Minn.Stat. § 65B.44, subd. 6 (2006), is limited to a decedent’s surviving spouse and children and that Perry is thus not entitled to survivors’ economic loss benefits under the Minnesota No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act, Minn.Stat. §§ 65B.41-65B.71 (2006). We affirm.

Respondent Auto Owners Insurance Company issued a garage liability insurance policy to Kincaids Cars, Inc., an automobile sales company owned by Daniel Savage. Savage was fatally injured in a motor vehicle accident while driving a vehicle owned by the company. Auto Owners paid out $20,000 in medical benefits and $2,000 in non-medical benefits under the policy.

For approximately 7 years preceding his death, Savage had lived in Savage, Minnesota, with his girlfriend, appellant Chong Suk Perry. According to Perry, she and Savage owned their home together, had a joint checking account, and pooled their financial resources. Perry applied for survivors’ economic loss benefits in June 2005, and Auto Owners denied her claim on the ground that the policy provides for the payment of survivors’ economic loss benefits only to the decedent’s surviving spouse and children. After Perry sought arbitration of her claim, Auto Owners commenced an action for declaratory judgment and brought a summary judgment motion. Auto Owners contended that Perry failed to qualify as a “dependent” under the insurance policy and that the policy comported with the requirements of the No-Fault Act. The No-Fault Act requires insurers to offer survivors’ economic loss benefits to a decedent’s “surviving dependents.” Minn.Stat. § 65B.44, subd. 6. The Act sets forth the following definition of “dependent”:

For the purposes of definition under section 65B.41 to 65B.71, the following described persons shall be presumed to be dependents of a deceased person: (a) a wife is dependent on a husband with whom she lives at the time of his death; (b) a husband is dependent on a wife with whom he lives at the time of her death; (c) any child while under the age of 18 years, or while over that age but physically or mentally incapacitated from earning, is dependent on the parent with whom the child is living or from whom the child is receiving support regularly at the time of the death of such parent. Questions of the existence and the extent of dependency shall be questions of fact, considering the support regularly received from the deceased.

Id. The district court granted Auto Owners’ summary judgment motion.

The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment, concluding that section 65B.44, subd. 6, “defines a ‘dependent’ * * * as a “wife’ or ‘husband’ of the deceased, or ‘any child’ of a deceased parent.” Auto Owners Ins. Co. v. Perry, 730 N.W.2d 282, 285 (Minn.App.2007) (quoting Minn.Stat. § 65B.44, subd. 6). The court of appeals rejected Perry’s contention “that the last sentence of the [Ajct’s definition of ‘dependent’ creates a broader class of dependents” than is provided for in Auto Owners’ insurance policy. Id.

Perry concedes that she does not qualify as a dependent under the terms of the insurance policy; she argues, rather, that by providing for the payment of survivors’ economic loss benefits only to a decedent’s surviving spouse and children, the policy does not comply with the minimum coverage requirements prescribed in section 65B.44, subd. 6. The paramount goal of statutory interpretation “is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature.” Minn.Stat. § 645.16 (2006). If the language of a statute is unambiguous, “the letter of the law shall not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing the spirit.” Id. But if the statutory language is ambiguous, we may look to other sources to ascertain legislative intent. See id. Statutory interpretation is a question of law, which we review de novo. State v. Al-Naseer, 734 N.W.2d 679, 683 (Minn.2007).

The key to this dispute is an argument about the interpretation of the final sentence of the second paragraph of section 65B.44, subd. 6, which reads, “Questions of the existence and the extent of dependency shall be questions of fact, considering the support regularly received from the deceased.” Perry argues that this language creates a class of provable dependents consisting of persons other than the surviving spouse and children of a decedent. Auto Owners, on the other hand, contends that section 65B.44, subd. 6, defines a “dependent” as the decedent’s surviving spouse or child and that the final sentence of the subdivision’s second paragraph merely permits the presumed dependency of a surviving spouse or child to be rebutted.

We engaged in our most extensive assessment of section 65B.44, subd. 6, in Peevy v. Mutual Services Casualty Insurance Co., in which a decedent’s ex-wife sought survivors’ economic loss benefits under the decedent’s no-fault automobile insurance policy. 346 N.W.2d 120, 121 (Minn.1984). After discussing the arguments in favor of the parties’ respective interpretations of section 65B.44, subd. 6, we concluded that the subdivision is ambiguous and held that the ex-wife was entitled to survivors’ economic loss benefits under the terms of the policy itself. Id. at 121-23. Contrary to the dissent’s characterization of Peevy, we did not intimate which interpretation of section 65B.44, subd. 6, we found more compelling. Our assessment of section 65B.44, subd. 6, in Peevy was dicta, and it is not self-evident that the subdivision is, in fact, ambiguous. Indeed, because section 65B.44, subd. 6, is devoid of any explicit reference to a class of dependents consisting of persons other than the decedent’s surviving spouse and children, we conclude that the better argument is that it is not ambiguous.

Lending further support to Auto Owners’ plain language interpretation of section 65B.44, subd. 6, is the subdivision’s third paragraph, which provides as follows:

Payments shall be made to the dependent, except that benefits to a dependent who is a child or an incapacitated person may be paid to the dependent’s surviving parent or guardian. Payments shall be terminated whenever the recipient ceases to maintain a status which if the decedent were alive would be that of dependency.

“Status” is defined as “[a] person’s legal condition,” examples of which include “the status of a father” and “the status of a wife.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1447 (8th ed.2004). Given that a live-in girlfriend does not have a “status” under the law akin to that of a spouse or child and that a decedent’s surviving spouse and children are identified as presumed dependents in the preceding paragraph of section 65B.44, subd. 6, the word “status” logically refers to a person’s status as a surviving spouse or child of the decedent.

Because Perry is not Savage’s surviving spouse or child, she does not have a “status” that she must “maintain” in order to continue receiving benefits pursuant to section 65B.44, subd. 6. Therefore, under Perry’s reading of section 65B.44, subd. 6, she would be entitled to benefits until her death or until she receives the maximum amount of survivors’ economic loss benefits payable. See Minn.Stat. § 65B.44, subd. 1(a) (2006) (setting forth the minimum basic economic loss benefits that insurers must provide). It would be anomalous for the legislature to create a broad class of provable dependents and then fail to delineate a standard by which payments to members of that class terminate. See Minn.Stat. § 645.17(1) (2006) (“[T]he legislature does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution, or unreasonable”).

Although we conclude that the statutory-language at issue is not ambiguous, given our contrary statement in dicta in Peevy, it is useful to consider the legislative history and legislative purposes behind the statute. Perry’s interpretation lacks merit even if we conclude that ambiguity exists and therefore look to legislative history and legislative purposes to determine the statute’s meaning.

Evolution and Legislative History of Minn.Stat. § 65B.kk, subd. 6

We resort to the former law and legislative history to ascertain the legislative intent behind an ambiguous statute. Minn. Stat. § 645.16(5), (7). As originally proposed in the Senate in 1973, the No-Fault Act mandated payment of survivors’ economic loss benefits to “survivors,” which it defined by reference to Minn.Stat. § 573.02, subd. 1 (1971), as “the surviving spouse and next of kin.” 1 Journal of the Senate 1503-04 (68th Minn.Leg., Apr. 25, 1973). But when enacted in 1974, the second paragraph of section 65B.44, subd. 6, identified a decedent’s surviving spouse and children as presumed dependents and provided, “In all other cases, questions of the existence and extent of dependency shall be determined in accordance with the facts at the time of the death.” Act of Apr. 11, 1974, ch. 408, § 4, 1974 Minn. Laws 762, 766-67 (codified at Minn.Stat. § 65B.44, subd. 6 (1974)) (emphasis added).

The legislature deleted the phrase “[i]n all other cases” as part of its amendment of the No-Fault Act in 1975. Act of Mar. 28, 1975, ch. 18, § 5, 1975 Minn. Laws 208, 210. Senator Jack Davies explained to the Senate Committee on Labor and Commerce that the 1975 legislation was necessary because “in preparing legislation for a law with the magnitude, scope and complexities of the No-fault law it is not unusual that drafting errors, omissions, ambiguities and misleading provisions get into the law.” Hearing on S.F. 28, S. Comm. Labor and Commerce, 69th Minn. Leg., Jan. 14, 1975 (minutes). Senator Davies noted that “in some instances the present language is awkward and in others unintended language will be removed from the law, but that the bill does not make any substantive changes in the law.” Id.

As is argued by Auto Owners, the phrase “[i]n all other cases” may have been “unintended language” or one of the “misleading provisions” that the legislature intended to remove from the No-Fault Act. See id. The dissent agrees that “[t]he purpose of the change was to eliminate confusing and misleading language,” and we believe that the language is confusing and misleading because it did not accurately reflect the intention of the legislature to limit dependency qualification to a decedent’s surviving spouse and children. Auto Owners’ contention is supported by our presumption that the adoption of an amendment is indicative of legislative intent to effect “some change in the existing law.” Bhd. of Ry. & S.S. Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employees, Lodge 364 v. State, 303 Minn. 178, 195, 229 N.W.2d 3, 13 (1975). By eliminating the phrase “[i]n all other cases” from section 65B.44, subd. 6, the legislature likely intended to limit the definition of “dependent” to a decedent’s surviving spouse and children.

Legislative Purposes Behind the No-Fault Act

In ascertaining the legislative intent behind an ambiguous statute, we also consider the mischief to be remedied and the object to be attained. Minn.Stat. § 645.16(3)-(4). The legislatures purposes in adopting the No-Fault Act included, inter alia, “to relieve the severe economic distress of uncompensated victims of automobile accidents within this state, to speed the administration of justice, and to ease the burden of litigation on the courts of this state.” Minn.Stat. § 65B.42 (2006).

Amici curiae OutFront Minnesota and Minnesota Association for Justice suggest that the adoption of Perry’s interpretation of section 65B.44, subd. 6, would further the legislative purpose of relieving the economic hardship of uncompensated victims of automobile accidents. But there is no evidence that the legislature actually intended to require insurers to provide survivors’ economic loss benefits to individuals other than the decedent’s surviving spouse and children. Limiting the definition of “dependent” to a decedent’s surviving spouse and children, in contrast, would further the legislative purposes of “speeding] the administration of justice” and eas[ing] the burden of litigation on the courts of this state. See Minn.Stat. § 65B.42. If we were to adopt Perrys interpretation of section 65B.44, subd. 6, any person financially dependent on an insured decedent could potentially be entitled to survivors economic loss benefits under the No-Fault Act. The flood of litigation that would likely ensue from such a ruling would actually hinder the administration of justice and increase the burden of litigation on Minnesota courts in contravention of the legislature’s purposes in enacting the No-Fault Act. See Minn.Stat. § 65B.42.

In light of the unambiguous language of Minn.Stat. § 65B.44, subd. 6, the district court did not err in concluding that the definition of “dependent” in section 65B.44, subd. 6, is limited to a decedent’s surviving spouse and children. Because Perry is not Daniel Savage’s surviving spouse or child, she is not entitled to survivors’ economic loss benefits under the No-Fault Act.

Affirmed.

DIETZEN, J., not having been a member of this court at the time of the argument and submission, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

PAGE, Justice

(dissenting).

Today, the court misinterprets the definition of “dependent” under Minnesota’s No-Fault Act, Minn.Stat. § 65B.44, subd. 6 (2006). In doing so, the court ignores the language of the statute and the legislative intent behind the statute and its subsequent amendment. Further, the court’s interpretation undermines an important purpose of the Act and will lead to absurd results. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

Minnesota’s No-Fault Act states:

Survivors economic loss benefits, in the event of death occurring within one year of the date of the accident, caused by and arising out of injuries received in the accident, are subject to a maximum of $200 per week and shall cover loss accruing after decedent’s death of contributions of money or tangible things of economic value, not including services, that surviving dependents would have received from the decedent for their support during their dependency had the decedent not suffered the injury causing death.
For the purposes of definition under section 65B.41 to 65B.71, the following described persons shall be presumed to be dependents of a deceased person: (a) a wife is dependent on a husband with whom she lives at the time of his death; (b) a husband is dependent on a wife with whom he lives at the time of her death; (c) any child while under the age of 18 years, or while over that age but physically or mentally incapacitated from earning, is dependent on the parent with whom the child is living or from whom the child is receiving support regularly at the time of the death of such parent. Questions of the existence and the extent of dependency shall be questions of fact, considering the support regularly received from the deceased.
Payments shall be made to the dependent, except that benefits to a dependent who is a child or an incapacitated person may be paid to the dependent’s surviving parent or guardian. Payments shall be terminated whenever the recipient ceases to maintain a status which if the decedent were alive would be that of dependency.

Minn.Stat. § 65B.44, subd. 6. (emphasis added).

In 1984, we considered for the first time how to interpret section 65B.44, subdivision 6. See Peevy v. Mut. Servs. Cas. Ins. Co., 346 N.W.2d 120 (Minn.1984). Peevy involved an ex-wife who relied on her former husband’s spousal maintenance for 87% of her monthly income and for her hospital and medical insurance and who sued the former husband’s insurance company to recover survivor’s economic loss benefits. Id. at 121. While noting that subdivision 6 is “not a model of clarity,” we concluded that “one possible reading of the statute” supports a former spouse’s dependency claim under the Act. Id. at 121-22. We reasoned that, “[i]f dependency were limited to the presumed categories, there would be no need for further inquiry into the existence of dependency based on regular receipt of support. Consideration of regularly received support is not relevant to the dependency of those persons entitled to a presumption.” Id. at 122. While Peevy was ultimately decided on the insurance policy’s language, I believe the Peevy court’s reasoning underlying its interpretation of subdivision 6 was sound then and continues to be sound today.

We interpreted section 65B.44, subdivision 6, a second time in Dahle v. Aetna Casualty & Insurance Co., in order to determine whether a posthumous child is a “surviving dependent” who may recover benefits under the no-fault assigned claims plan under Minn.Stat. §§ 65B.63-65B.65 (1982). 352 N.W.2d 397, 400-01 (Minn.1984). We noted that under section 65B.44, subdivision 6, a child is “presumed” to be dependent when receiving support regularly from the deceased parent at the time of the death of the parent. Id. at 400. We also focused on that section’s language providing that “questions of the existence and the extent of dependency” are questions of fact, depending on the support regularly received from the deceased. Id. Citing Peevy, 346 N.W.2d at 122, we noted that section 65B.44, subdivision 6, “also can be read to outline obvious situations of dependency.” Id. (emphasis added). We indicated that a posthumous child “cannot be characterized as [involving an] obvious” situation of dependency and that “[dependency is a question of fact by definition.” Id. We then considered the definition of “surviving dependent” in light of the definition of “child or children” found in Minn.Stat. § 645.45, subd. 8 (1982). Id. We concluded that “dependency is a question of fact in situations where dependency is not presumed,” before holding that a posthumous child is included in the definition of “surviving dependent.” Id. at 400-01. Interestingly, in the 24 years since Peevy and Dahle, the legislature has taken no action to overrule the court’s interpretation by amending subdivision 6.

The Act provides that surviving dependents of a person killed in a motor vehicle accident are entitled to certain survivors’ economic loss benefits. In defining who qualifies as a surviving dependent, the Act’s language identifies three classes of people who are presumed to be a dependent of the deceased person: (1) a wife living with her husband at the time of the husband’s death; (2) a husband living with his wife at the time of the wife’s death; and (3) the decedent’s children under the age of 18 or if over 18 and also incapacitated and receiving support from the decedent at the time of the decedent’s death. Minn.Stat. § 65B.44, subd. 6. Having identified these three presumed classes of surviving dependents, the statute goes on to state, “Questions of the existence and the extent of dependency shall be questions of fact, considering the support regularly received from the deceased.” Id. Based on this language, the court holds that only those who the Act presumes to be surviving dependents can qualify to receive survivors’ benefits under the Act.

A plain reading of the Act’s language strongly suggests, contrary to the court’s holding, that there are people other than those in the presumed classes who may qualify as a dependent of a deceased person. The statute provides “the following described persons shall be presumed to be dependents of a deceased person,” id., which, by implication, indicates that there are individuals who could qualify as dependents but are not described in the presumed classes. The court, however, concludes that in amending subdivision 6 by removing the phrase “in all other cases,” the legislature intended to make ineligible for dependency benefits all of those persons who were previously eligible for such benefits except those the statute presumes to be dependents. I believe that conclusion is wrong.

When construing statutory language, we ascertain legislative intent by considering:

(1) the occasion and necessity for the law;
(2) the circumstances under which it was enacted;
(3) the mischief to be remedied;
(4) the object to be attained;
(5) the former law, if any, including other laws upon the same or similar subjects;
(6) the consequences of a particular interpretation;
(7) the contemporaneous legislative history; and
(8) legislative and administrative interpretations of the statute.

Minn.Stat. § 645.16 (2006).

Here, the legislature enacted subdivision 6 in part “to relieve the severe economic distress of uncompensated victims.” Minn.Stat. § 65B.42 (2006). Today, the court dismisses this purpose in favor of speeding the administration of justice and easing the burden of litigating claims; however, relieving economic distress was the focus of this court in Dahle in extending survivors’ benefits to posthumous children. 352 N.W.2d at 401. Furthermore, the court’s interpretation ignores the fact that the No-Fault Act is designed to be remedial, 352 N.W.2d at 401, and we interpret remedial legislation “broadly to better effectuate its purpose,” Current Tech. Concepts, Inc. v. Irie Enters., Inc., 530 N.W.2d 539, 544 (Minn.1995). The court’s narrow reading of subdivision 6, if anything, exacerbates the severe economic distress of uncompensated victims.

Consideration of “contemporaneous legislative history” and the former law also inform our understanding of the legislature’s intent in enacting section 65B.44, subdivision 6. The court focuses on the fact that a 1975 amendment to the Act deleted the phrase “[i]n all other cases” from the last sentence of the second paragraph of subdivision 6. Before the amendment, the sentence read, “In all other cases, questions of the existence and extent of dependency shall be determined in accordance with the facts at the time of the death.” Minn.Stat. § 65B.44, subd. 6 (1974). When the deleted language is included in the sentence, the sentence suggests that, in all cases other than those in which the person is presumed to be a dependent, questions of the existence and extent of dependency are questions of fact and that in cases in which the person is presumed to be a dependent the existence or extent of their dependency is not a question of fact. Indeed, the court, without saying so, essentially concedes that before the last sentence of the second paragraph of subdivision 6 was amended in 1975 by the deletion of the words “in all other cases,” persons other than those presumed to be dependents were eligible for benefits under subdivision 6 if they could establish the existence and extent of their dependency. If the legislature had intended such a significant change, however, it certainly knew how to say so explicitly. But it did not. In fact, contemporaneous legislative history, as the court notes, suggests that the removal of the words “in all other cases” was not intended to change the meaning. The purpose of the change was to eliminate confusing and misleading language. The amendment of the language included the presumed classes in the category of persons who could have their dependency rebutted.

The court concludes from the deletion that “the legislature likely intended to limit the definition of ‘dependent’ to a decedent’s surviving spouse and children.” However, it reaches the opposite conclusion reached in Peevy, when we determined that the legislative history of the amendment to subdivision 6 supports an interpretation indicating an intent to create an open category of dependents other than those persons presumed to be dependent. 346 N.W.2d at 122. The sponsor of the amendment, Senator Jack Davies, noted that “in some instances the present language is awkward and in others unintended language will be removed from the law, but that the bill does not make any substantive changes in the law.” Hearing on S.F. 28, S. Comm. Labor and Commerce, 69th Minn. Leg., Jan. 14, 1975 (minutes) (emphasis added). In Peevy, we stated that

[t]he reason for the change, in Senator Davies’ words, was that “dependency has to be determined on a continuing basis rather than as of the time of death.” There was no discussion of the elimination of the language “[i]n all other cases.” The language allowing inquiry into the existence of dependency, however, may make the “[i]n all other cases” language unnecessary and could explain its elimination in the redrafting. In light of Senator Davies’ statement that the amendment made no substantive changes, the legislative history supports a conclusion that there can be dependents under the statute other than the presumed dependents.

346 N.W.2d at 122.

Contrary to the court’s reading of the statute, it is more logical and a plainer reading of the statute to infer that the legislature effected the change to have courts look at the factual question of dependency in both presumed classes and nonpresumed classes of dependents. If the legislature intended to enact a major substantive change to subdivision 6 by limiting the survivors’ benefits to persons in the presumptive classes, the amendment’s sponsor would not have had a reason to indicate that the amendment makes no substantive change. Further, the change would have been more explicit, more clear, and less cryptic. The legislature certainly knows how to explicitly limit access to dependency benefits. See, e.g., Minn.Stat. § 176.111, subd. 3 (2006) (specifying “[a] wife, child, husband, mother, father, grandmother, grandfather, grandchild, sister, brother, mother-in-law, father-in-law” as persons who could be considered dependents under the Workers’ Compensation Act). In this case, the legislature could simply have modified the first sentence of the second paragraph of subdivision 6 to read, “For purposes of definition under section 65B.41 to 65B.71, the dependents of a deceased person are limited to the following persons: (a) a wife * * The legislature did not make such a modification. As I read the amendment, the impact of the deletion of the phrase “in all other cases” is to change subdivision 6 to require that in all cases, including presumed cases, questions of the existence and extent of dependency are fact questions. Thus, I would take the amendment’s sponsor at his word and conclude that the legislature intended to delete unintended language when it removed the words “in all other cases” from subdivision 6. I do not read the removal of the “in all other cases” language to change the meaning of the remainder of the sentence to read that the sentence now applies only to those presumed to be dependents.

We also consider the consequences of a particular interpretation when construing a statute. Minn.Stat. § 645.16. The court’s reading of subdivision 6 produces absurd results, as illustrated by any number of hypothetical, but not unusual, situations that do not meet the parameters of the statute under the court’s narrow interpretation. Take, for example, the situation involving a father who is the breadwinner and the mother stays at home caring for the couple’s three minor children. After five years of living together, the couple decides to get married. The wedding day comes, they get married, and the father is killed in a motor vehicle accident the next day. Under the court’s reading of subdivision 6, the mother would be eligible for survivors’ benefits because she is presumed to be a dependent of the deceased husband and father. If, however, the father is killed on the way to the wedding ceremony, the mother would not be eligible for survivors’ benefits because she is not a presumed dependent and is not eligible to establish the existence or extent of her dependency even though, but for the timing of the father’s death, she is, for all practical purposes, in the same position she would otherwise have been in if the father’s death occurred the day after the wedding. If the couple married and lived together for five more years and separated but did not divorce and the husband is killed in a motor vehicle accident after the separation, the wife would no longer be presumed to be a dependent (because she was not living with the husband at the time of death) and therefore, under the court’s interpretation of subdivision 6, would not qualify for dependency benefits, even if she had been receiving court-ordered maintenance. The children’s eligibility for the benefits would be uncertain depending on whether the husband was providing regular support at the time of his death. In the case of a husband and wife who live apart due to the wife’s military service, if the wife were to die as a result of an automobile accident, the husband would be ineligible for survivors’ benefits under the court’s holding. Yet another absurd result would occur when a child takes an elderly parent or an incapacitated sibling into her home in order to care and provide for the parent or sibling. If the child dies as a result of an automobile accident, the parent or sibling would not be able to recover benefits as a dependent. Perhaps most absurd, under the court’s reading of the statute, is the example of the couple, married for 60 years, in their 90s, and the husband, no longer able to live in their home, lives in an assisted living facility. If the wife dies as a result of a motor vehicle accident, the husband, even though he would be a surviving spouse at the time of the wife’s death, would not be eligible for survivors’ benefits because he could not establish dependency under the court’s holding. Such disparate results are not only absurd, they serve to highlight the fact that the legislative goal of relieving the severe economic distress of uncompensated victims is not met. Thus, I conclude that the legislature could not have intended the narrow interpretation ascribed to subdivision 6 by the court.

Finally, I would note that courts and commentators, until now, have tended to interpret Minn.Stat. § 65B.44, subd. 6, as extending eligibility for dependency benefits to persons beyond those in the presumed categories. In Peevy, we discussed the statutory language and legislative history as supporting an interpretation that the category of dependents is open beyond the presumed classes. 346 N.W.2d at 121-22. In Dahle, we concluded that “dependency is a question of fact in situations where dependency is not presumed.” 352 N.W.2d at 400. In School Sisters of Notre Dame v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 476 N.W.2d 523, 525 (Minn.App.1991), the court of appeals stated that, “[i]n addition to persons presumed to be dependents, the statute indicates an intent to create a category of persons whose dependent status is a question of fact.” Professor Michael Steenson notes that there seems to be no specific limitation in the statute to relatives. Michael K. Steenson, Minnesota No-Fault Automobile Insurance § 8.06[2] (3d ed.2007). Combined with the legislature’s failure to take any action to change any of these interpretations, the court’s contrary reading of the statute is misguided.

For all of the above reasons, I conclude that the category of persons who are eligible to receive survivors’ benefits as dependents of a deceased person who dies as a result of injuries received in a motor vehicle accident is not limited to those persons presumed to be dependents under Minn. Stat. § 65B.44, subd. 6. As the court of appeals said in School Sisters of Notre Dame, “the statute indicates an intent to create a category of persons whose dependent status is a question of fact.”

Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

MEYER, Justice

(dissenting).

I join in the dissent of Justice Page.

      . The No-Fault Act sets forth the statutorily prescribed minimum coverage for automobile insurance policies. Am. Family Ins. Group v. Schroedl, 616 N.W.2d 273, 278, 280 (Minn.2000). “[U]nless the policy provides greater protection for the insured than the No-Fault Act, the terms of the policy must be conformed to the provisions of the Act.” Ill. Farmers Ins. Co. v. Glass Serv. Co., 683 N.W.2d 792, 803 (Minn.2004).

      . Although Dahle v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Insurance Co., 352 N.W.2d 397 (Minn.1984), offers some support for Perry’s reading of section 65B.44, subd. 6, the facts of that case are distinguishable from those before us. The issue we resolved in Dahle was whether a posthumous child qualifies as a “surviving dependent” under the statute, and we emphasized that posthumous children are afforded protection elsewhere under Minnesota law. Id. at 400-01. Dahle, which involved a claim brought on behalf of an actual "child” of the decedent, cannot be fairly read as authority for the proposition that others, such as friends, acquaintances, or a girlfriend or boyfriend residing with the decedent, are entitled to benefits. Dahle involved children, who are entitled to support from parents as a matter of law and are specifically mentioned in the No-Fault Act.

      . We decline the dissent's invitation to speculate with respect to various hypotheticals, in dicta, as to particular circumstances that are not before us. That said, many of the dissent’s hypotheticals involve individuals specifically recognized in the statute and also in Dahle.

      . The adoption of Perry’s reading of section 65B.44, subd. 6, would thus disfavor a decedent’s surviving spouse and children with regard to the termination of benefits. Payments to a decedent’s surviving spouse and children would terminate when the recipient ceases to maintain the "status * * * of dependency” (presumably upon the remarriage of a surviving spouse or upon the attainment of majority, marriage, or emancipation of a surviving child), but other individuals would be entitled to payments until death or receipt of the entire amount payable under the No-Fault Act. Such a result would be contrary to the legislature’s intention to favor a decedent’s surviving spouse and children via the dependency presumption.

      . Of course, as we noted, and indeed emphasized, in Peevy, the definition of “dependent” is a matter subject to legislative determination. See Peevy, 346 N.W.2d at 123. The legislature has not acted to further define “dependent” since Peevy was decided in 1984.

      . The other possible reading discussed in Peevy is that the phrase, “considering the support regularly received from the deceased,” could be read "to refer to the issue of the extent of dependency only.” 346 N.W.2d at 122.

      . Although the court rejects our assessment of the No-Fault Act in Peevy as dicta, the mere fact that it was dicta does not mean the Peevy court's reasoning is flawed. Interestingly, the court makes no effort to explain why that reasoning is unsound.

      .Although the court is right that Dahle ultimately held that posthumous children are “entitled to support from parents as a matter of law, and [are] specifically mentioned in the No-Fault Act,” the court fails to explain away the statement that there are situations in which dependency is not obvious.

      . Using examples from Black’s Law Dictionary 1447 (8th ed.2004), the court suggests one must have a legal "status” that is terminable, such as “status of a father” and "status of a wife,” to be a dependent under the No-Fault Act. Black’s definition is not nearly so narrow, however. Black’s Law Dictionary defines "status" as follows:
      1. A person’s legal condition, whether personal or proprietary; the sum total of a person's legal rights, duties, liabilities, and other legal relations, or any particular group of them separately considered <the status of a landowner>. 2. A person's legal condition regarding personal rights but excluding proprietary relations <the status of a father> <the status of a wife>. 3. A person’s capacities and incapacities, as opposed to other elements of personal status <the status of minors >. 4. A person's legal condition insofar as it is imposed by the law without the person's consent, as opposed to a condition that the person has acquired by agreement <the status of a slave >.

        Black’s Law Dictionary 1447 (8th ed.2004). Moreover, Black’s Law Dictionary does not provide the exclusive definition for the word "status.” For example, the Random House Dictionary of the English Language 1862 (2d ed.1987) defines “status” as "1. the position of an individual in relation to another or others * * * 3. Law. the standing of a person before the law.” The court's reasoning that a live-in girlfriend does not have to maintain her “status” and will receive benefits until she dies or meets the maximum amount of survivors’ benefits payable fails to recognize that her status as a dependent, just like a surviving wife's, will end when she marries. Unlike a wife who was living with the decedent at the time of his death and who is dependent without regard to the extent of the dependency, the girifriend’s dependency may even end earlier than death, remarriage, or receipt of the statutory maximum benefit, as her "status” would be a fact question that could end if she became dependent on another person or if she became self-dependent, for example as a result of winning the lottery or receiving an inheritance.


author: RUSSELL A. ANDERSON, Chief Justice.

text:
    Rickford Rehmann MUNGER, petitioner, Respondent, v. STATE of Minnesota, Appellant.
    No. A06-1563.
    Supreme Court of Minnesota.
    May 29, 2008.

      Lori Swanson, Minnesota Attorney General, St. Paul, MN, Mark Ostrem, Olmsted County Attorney, James Martinson, David Franklin McLeod, Assistant County Attorney, Rochester, MN, for Appellant.
    John Stuart, State Public Defender, Richard Andrew Schmitz, Assistant State Public Defender, St. Paul, MN, for Respondent.
   OPINION

RUSSELL A. ANDERSON, Chief Justice.

The issue before us is whether the offense of first-degree burglary, which requires nonconsensual entry into a building with intent to commit a crime, requires that the intent must be to commit a crime within the building. Respondent Rickford Rehmann Munger was convicted of first-degree burglary following a guilty plea in Olmsted County. He subsequently petitioned to vacate his guilty plea, arguing that the plea was invalid because the factual basis did not establish an intent to commit a crime within the building. The district court denied the petition. On appeal, the court of appeals reversed, concluding that the burglary statute required that Munger have intended to commit a crime within the building, a fact not established at the plea hearing. Concluding that the plain language of the statute does not require intent to commit a crime within the building, we reverse and reinstate the judgment of the district court.

On the night of September 21, 2004, law enforcement responded to a report of a prowler at an apartment building in Rochester. A resident of a ground-level apartment explained that she had seen a man walking around the area; that he walked by her apartment windows several times; and that he looked into the windows of her apartment and those of a neighbor’s apartment. From another room, she watched the man look into her open bedroom window, which did not have a screen, reach inside, and open the curtain. She provided the officer with a description of the man. The police located a man matching the description within a couple of blocks of the apartment building. The man identified himself as respondent Munger. The resident positively identified Munger as the man she saw peer in her window and reach inside.

Munger was charged with first-degree burglary, in violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.582, subd. 1(a) (2006).. Following a contested omnibus hearing and the denial of his motion to dismiss the charge for lack of probable cause, Munger entered a guilty plea to the charged offense in exchange for an agreement that the State would not pursue an enhanced sentence under the dangerous offender statute, Minn.Stat. § 609.1095, subd. 2 (2006). During the plea colloquy, Munger admitted that he reached his. hand into the open window of the ground-level apartment and moved the curtain for the purpose of being able to look in and invade the privacy of the resident. See Minn.Stat. § 609.746, subd. 1(a) (2006). Following a presentence investigation, the district court imposed the guidelines term of 60 months.

Munger subsequently petitioned for postconviction relief, seeking to withdraw his guilty plea on grounds that the plea was invalid. He argued that the burglary statute requires an intent to commit a crime within the building, but the factual basis for his plea established only “window peeping,” a crime that occurred outside the building. The postconviction court summarily denied relief, concluding that “[w]hile most burglary cases undoubtedly involve commission or an intent to commit a crime within the building, the statute makes no such geographic requirement.” On appeal, the court of appeals reversed, concluding that the statute “impostes] a requirement that, to be convicted of first-degree burglary * * *, a person must be shown to have intended to commit a crime within the building.” Munger v. State, 787 N.W.2d 604, 610 (Minn.App.2007). The court of appeals determined that Munger’s plea was therefore invalid and remanded the matter for further proceedings. Id. at 611. We granted the State’s petition for review.

A valid guilty plea must be accurate, voluntary, and intelligent. State v. Theis, 742 N.W.2d 643, 646 (Minn.2007). The accuracy requirement protects the defendant from pleading guilty to a more serious offense than he could properly be convicted of at trial. State v. Trott, 338 N.W.2d 248, 251 (Minn.1983). Accuracy requires an adequate factual basis to support the charge. Theis, 742 N.W.2d at 647. The factual basis must establish “ ‘sufficient facts on the record to support a conclusion that defendant’s conduct falls within the charge to which he desires to plead guilty.’” State v. Iverson, 664 N.W.2d 346, 349-50 (Minn.2003) (quoting Kelsey v. State, 298 Minn. 531, 532, 214 N.W.2d 236, 237 (1974)). Munger’s claim is that his guilty plea is invalid because the factual basis for the plea does not establish that his conduct fell within a first-degree burglary offense, which he maintains requires intent to commit a crime within the building entered.

Statutory interpretation is a question of law, which we review de novo. Id. at 350. “A statute must be construed according to its plain language.” State v. Colvin, 645 N.W.2d 449, 452 (Minn.2002). “When the words of a law in their application to an existing situation are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of the law shall not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing the spirit.” Minn.Stat. § 645.16 (2006).

Minnesota Statutes § 609.582, subd. 1, provides that “[w]hoever enters a building without consent and with intent to commit a crime, or enters a building without consent and commits a crime while in the building,” commits first-degree burglary if “(a) the building is a dwelling and another person, not an accomplice, is present in it when the burglar enters or at any time while the burglar is in the building.” As a preliminary matter, the intrusion of any part of the actor’s person into the building, including the intrusion of a hand to open a window, constitutes the requisite entry. See State v. Nelson, 363 N.W.2d 81, 83 (Minn.App.1985); 3 Wayne R. LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law § 21.1(b), at 210 (2d ed.2003).

For purposes of this appeal, the salient language in the burglary statute is: “[wjhoever enters a building without consent and with intent to commit a crime, or enters a building without consent and commits a crime while in the building,'” commits burglary. (Emphasis added.) Using normal rules of grammatical construction, the plain language of the burglary statute formulates two separate and distinct means, signified by the disjunctive conjunction “or” and separated by a comma, by which a person can violate the statute. “[Ijn the absence of some ambiguity surrounding the legislature’s use of the word ‘or,’ we will read it in the disjunctive and require that only one of the possible factual situations be present in order for the statute to be satisfied.” State v. Loge, 608 N.W.2d 152, 155 (Minn.2000). The two clauses are clear and unambiguous. The plain language of the first-degree burglary statute does not require that a person entering a building without consent and with intent to commit a crime intend that the crime be committed within the building entered.

Munger suggests situations, under our reading of the statute, in which a burglary might occur simply by passing through a building while intending to commit some minor offense so far attenuated from the building in time and place as to lead to results clearly unintended by the legislature. We presume “that the legislature does not intend * * * absurd or unreasonable results.” State v. Koenig, 666 N.W.2d 366, 372 (Minn.2003). Concern about the lack of a connection between the nonconsensual entry into a building and the intended crime is not implicated here. The factual basis for Munger’s plea established that he reached into the residence to move the curtain and that he did so simultaneously to surreptitiously gaze, stare, or peep through the window with intent to interfere with the privacy of the resident, in violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.746, subd. 1.

We would note that as originally enacted in the 1963 Criminal Code, the burglary statute provided that “[wjhoever enters a building without the consent of the person in lawful possession, with intent to commit a crime therein, commits burglary.” Act of May 17, 1963, ch. 753, 1963 Minn. Laws 1185, 1222 (emphasis added). In 1982, the word “therein” was replaced with “in it.” Act of Mar. 23, 1982, ch. 613, § 5, 1982 Minn. Laws 1470, 1471. The 1983 recodifi-cation of the burglary law, which delineated degrees of burglary, did not include the words “in it,” providing instead that “[w]hoever enters a building without consent and with intent to commit a crime commits burglary.” Act of June 14, 1983, ch. 321, § 2, 1983 Minn. Laws 2058, 2059. In 1988, the legislature added the second clause of the current first-degree burglary offense: “or enters a building without consent and commits a crime while in the building.” Act of May 4, 1988, ch. 712, § 9, 1988 Minn. Laws 1649, 1654. The legislature also added similar language to the second-, third-, and fourth-degree burglary offenses. Id. at 1654-55. Consequently, we are mindful of the potential impact our decision may have with regard to the lesser degrees of burglary. Nevertheless, “where the language of the statute is clear, the court is bound to give effect thereto.” State v. Loge, 608 N.W.2d 152, 156-57 (Minn.2000).

We therefore hold that the plain statutory language for the offense of first-degree burglary which proscribes nonconsensual entry into a building with intent to commit a crime does not also require that the intent be to commit a crime within the building entered.

Reversed and judgment of the district court reinstated.

      . The dangerous offender statute, Minn.Stat. § 609.1095, subd. 2, authorizes the imposition of an upward durational departure from the presumptive sentence up to the statutory maximum if the offender is at least 18 years old and the court determines that the offender (1) committed a violent crime that is a felony; (2) has two or more prior convictions for violent crimes; and (3) is a danger to public safety. Munger’s criminal history indicates that he qualified for consideration for sentencing under the dangerous offender statute.

      . Minnesota Statutes § 609.746, subd. 1(a), provides:
      A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor who: (1) enters upon another’s property; (2) surreptitiously gazes, stares, or peeps in the window or any other aperture of a house or place of dwelling of another; and (3) does so with intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of a member of the household.

      . Minnesota Statutes § 609.582, subd. 1, provides:
      Whoever enters a building without consent and with intent to commit a crime, or enters a building without consent and commits a crime while in the building, either directly or as an accomplice, commits burglary in the first degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 20 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $35,000, or both, if:
      (a)the building is a dwelling and another person, not an accomplice, is present in it when the burglar enters or at any time while the burglar is in the building;
      (b) the burglar possesses, when entering or at any time while in the building, any of the following: a dangerous weapon, any article used or fashioned in a manner to lead the victim to reasonably believe it to be a dangerous weapon, or an explosive; or
      (c) the burglar assaults a person within the building or on the building’s appurtenant property.

      . However, for the third-degree burglary offense, the legislature also added language making explicit that the intent upon entry must be to commit the crime in the building, so that the third-degree crime reads:
      Whoever enters a building without consent and with intent to steal or commit any felony or gross misdemeanor while in the building, or enters a building without consent and steals or commits a felony or gross misdemeanor while in the building, either directly or as an accomplice, commits burglary in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.
      Minn.Stat. § 609.582, subd. 3 (2006).