Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/court-of-appeals/1995/c7-95-579.html
Timestamp: 2017-10-19 03:52:59
Document Index: 549632055

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 609', '§ 609', '§ 609', '§ 518', '§ 518', '§ 609', '§ 609', '§ 609', '§ 609', '§ 609']

Anderson v. Lake :: 1995 :: Minnesota Court of Appeals Decisions :: Minnesota Case Law :: Minnesota Law :: US Law :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Minnesota Case Law › Minnesota Court of Appeals Decisions › 1995 › Anderson v. Lake
536 N.W.2d 909 (1995)
Douglas A. ANDERSON, Sr. (C7-95-579), Mary J. Slattery (C3-95-580), Respondents, v. Barbara V. LAKE, Appellant.
*910 Douglas A. Anderson, Sr., pro se.
Dawn Carlson, Legal Services of North-west MN, Moorhead, for appellant.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the court ordered the one-year restraining order over Lake's objection. Lake's attorney argued that (1) there was no finding of harassment upon which the court could base an order; and (2) the court's findings were not conclusive *911 because the court did not permit Lake to rebut the arguments made by Anderson and Slattery through direct or cross-examination. Lake appeals.
Did the trial court's proceeding constitute a "hearing" under Minn.Stat. § 609.748 (Supp.1993)?
Minn.Stat. § 609.748 establishes the procedure a party must follow to obtain a harassment restraining order. The statute requires that a hearing be conducted so that the court can determine whether an order is appropriate. The statute, however, does not define "hearing." Lake directs us to Minn. Stat. § 609.748, subd. 5(a), which states:
The court may grant a restraining order ordering the respondent to cease or avoid the harassment of another person or to have no contact with that person if all the following occur: * * * (3) the court finds at the hearing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the respondent has engaged in harassment.
The object of all witness examination, both direct and cross, is to elicit facts to show the truth. Cross-examination of a witness should not be restricted so long as it serves that purpose. Mattfeld v. Nester, 226 Minn. 106, 126, 32 N.W.2d 291, 305 (1948). A "full hearing" includes "the right to present and cross-examine witnesses, to produce documents, and to have the case decided on the merits." El Nashaar v. El Nashaar, 529 N.W.2d 13, 14 (Minn.App.1995).
In El Nashaar[1] we considered the meaning of "full hearing" within the context the Minnesota Domestic Abuse Act. Minn. Stat. § 518B.01. We believe that Minn.Stat. § 518B.01 and Minn.Stat. § 609.748 are sufficiently similar so that we may recognize caselaw construing the former as applicable to the latter, and that a hearing under Minn. Stat. § 609.748 includes the right to present and cross-examine witnesses, to produce documents, and to have the case decided pursuant to the findings required by Minn.Stat. § 609.748, subd. 5(a)(3).[2]
Minn.R.Evid. 603. The court must base its findings upon testimony and any documents *912 properly introduced into evidence. Thus, Lake's request for a new hearing must be granted.
[1] In El Nashaar we considered the grant of a writ of prohibition. Yet, we find the parallels between the two cases and the two statutes helpful in defining the term "hearing" under Minn. Stat. § 609.748. For instance, both statutes provide for simplified petitioning processes and the availability of ex parte relief, as well as restraining orders.
[2] These formalities do not apply to a hearing regarding the issuance of a temporary restraining order with a duration period of less than 14 days. See Minn.Stat. § 609.748, subd. 4.