Court Opinion

ID: 9691536
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 20:38:11.177376+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:22.277173
License: Public Domain

TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. The majority concludes that a nine-unit apartment complex’s hallway within a secured access is a “public place” within the meaning of Minn.Stat. § 624.714, subd. 1(1996). I disagree.
This case can be distinguished from State v. DeLegge, 390 N.W.2d 10 (MinnApp.,1986). Id. In DeLegge, appellant was outside of his home inside a car that was parked in his driveway in possession of the pistol. 390 N.W.2d at 11. The driveway abutted a public roadway. Id. at 11-12. Moreover, appellant’s homestead and driveway were located in a residential neighborhood, where the general public “had a right to resort” to the abutting sidewalk, parking area, and roadway. Id. (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary definition of “public place”). Furthermore, appellant’s driveway area was “usually acces-' sible to the neighboring public,” and the public was free “to pass to and fro” past the driveway. Id. A stray bullet fired from the driveway could encroach upon numerous areas of public resort.
When the language of a statute is ambiguous, it is the duty of this court to “ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature.” Stawikowski v. Collin’s Elec. Constr. Co., 289 N.W.2d 390, 395 (Minn.1979). However, where the language of the statute is unambiguous, but merely produces a troubling result, the court must follow the language of the statute. See R.B. Thompson, Jr. Lumber Co. v. Windsor Dev. Corp., 383 N.W.2d 362, 366-67 (Minn.App.1986), review denied (Minn. May 21, 1986).
Minn.Stat. § 624.714, subd. 1(a) (1996), provides in part:
[a] person, * ⅜ * who carries, holds or possesses a pistol in a motor vehicle, snowmobile or boat, or on or about the person’s clothes or the person, or otherwise in possession or control in a public place of public area without first having obtained a permit to carry the pistol is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
When a statute does not define a word or phrase, the word or phrase “construed according to rules of grammar and according to their common and approved usage.” Minn. State § 645.08(1) (1996). Black’s Law Dictionary defines “public place” as:
[a] place to which the general public has a right to resort; not necessarily a place devoted solely to the uses of the public, but a place which is in point of fact public rather than private, a place visited by many persons and usually accessible to the neighboring public (e.g. a park or public beach). Also, a place in which the public has an interest as affecting the safety, *761health, morals and welfare of the community. A place exposed to the public, and where the public gathers together or pass to and fro.
Black’s Law Dictionary 1230-31 (6th ed.1990).
The record reveals that Hicks’ nine-unit, secured apartment building was only accessible “by residents with a key or guests allowed access by a resident activating a buzzer.” Unlike DeLegge, here there is no evidence to support a determination that (1) the public had a “right to resort” to the apartment complex; (2) the apartment building was accessible to the public; (3) the complex was a place where the public had an interest in protecting the community; or (4) the complex was exposed to the public whereby the public could pass “to and fro.”
Construing the meaning of “public place” as we must, according to its common and plain usage, the hallway of Hick’s apartment complex was not a public place within the meaning of Minn.Stat. § 624.714, subd. 1. Because there is no ambiguity in the statute, this court is without authority to look beyond its plain meaning. Thus, I would affirm the trial court.