state v brechon case brief

682 (1948) (stating that "an opportunity to be heard in his defense" is "basic in our system of jurisprudence"). A review of the record reveals that defendants were given freedom to testify that (1) their actions on the day of the protest were peaceful, (2) they believed abortion was wrong, (3) they believed abortion kills a human being, (4) they believed abortion harms women, (5) their beliefs stemmed from moral or religious convictions, (6) they believed there were felonies occurring inside the building, (7) they had tried alternatives to trespass to no avail, and (8) they relied upon certain statutes which they believed gave them a right to be on the Planned Parenthood premises. Id. November 19, 1991. Review Denied January 30, 1992. The existence of criminal intent is a question of fact that must be submitted to a jury. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. The Schoon court determined as a matter of law that the necessity defense is unavailable regarding acts of indirect civil disobedience. In Hoyt, this court expressly did not decide whether claim of right is an element of or a defense to the offense. A three-judge panel in a 2-1 vote reversed the trial court and held that "without claim of right" is an affirmative defense, that defendant's testimony as to beliefs is irrelevant, that a necessity defense may not be raised at trial, and that a pretrial offer of proof must be made as to the claim of right or justification defense. C7-97-1381 United States Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) March 11, 1999 Rather, Brechon was an expansive statement about the right of people charged with a crime to explain their conduct, and Brechon repeated the warning that criminal statutes are construed strictly against the state and in favor of defendants. 2d 368 (1970). Prior to trial the state moved to prevent defendants from presenting evidence pertaining to necessity or justification defenses unless certain conditions were met. During trial, the court limited evidence on the two defenses. 145.412 (1990), is an offense against the person under Minnesota's criminal code. What do you make of the "immigrant paradox"? "Claim of right" in a criminal trespass case under Minn.Stat. 2. 3. The trial court did not rule on the necessity defense. The trial court ruled that the state had the burden of disproving "claim of right" and that defendants could offer evidence about their reasons for committing the act, whether because of moral, political or religious beliefs, but could not testify more specifically such "as to the destruction [nuclear war] can present.". The evidence and instructions which appellants contend were erroneously excluded from the trial proceedings went to the basis of their belief that there were felonies occurring inside the building. Thus, Hoyt had presented a prima facie case of claim of right; that is, a reasonable belief that she had license or permission to visit. 609.605, subd. Id. As a review of these cases reveals, the court has never had occasion to rule on the burden of proof issues surrounding "claim. The trial court ruled that the state had the burden of disproving "claim of right" and that defendants could offer evidence about their reasons for committing the act, whether because of moral, political or religious beliefs, but could not testify more specifically such "as to the destruction [nuclear war] can present." Although defendant had not raised the issue, the court found no evidence that defendant had a claim of right. See State v. Brechon. 1976); see also Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 66-67, 96 S.Ct. We do not differentiate between "good" defendants and "bad" defendants. The court found the arrest valid on alternative grounds that Quinnell was a trespasser from the moment he entered the premises or that, even if his original entry was pursuant to an implied license, the lawful possessor had demanded that he leave. Quimbee has over 36,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 984 casebooks https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-. The special concurrence pointed out that even though good motives might not be a full defense and the trespassers' explanations might be unavailing, they still had a right, as criminal defendants, to take the stand under oath and tell their story. State v. Brechon . The court held that Hoyt did not know that the patient's guardians had acquiesced in the nursing home's letter refusing Hoyt permission to visit the patient. The court should also instruct the jury to disregard defendants' subjective motives in determining the issue of intent. The court, however, has never categorically barred the state from filing a motion in limine. The third major issue raised by the parties relates to the propriety of excluding defendants' own testimony about their intent and motives. While on routine patrol on May 30, 2004, St. Paul police officers Robert Jerue and Axel Henry monitored a dispatch call that came in at approximately 11:30 p.m. . See Gaetano v. United States, 406 A.2d 1291, 1294 (D.C.1979). The test for determining what constitutes a basic element of rather than an, Request a trial to view additional results. This conclusion does not mean the municipal court erred in imposing limits on the testimony of each defendant. MINN. STAT. Appellants challenge their misdemeanor convictions for trespass and obstruction of legal process. 1991). The court held that Hoyt did not know that the patient's guardians had acquiesced in the nursing home's letter refusing Hoyt permission to visit the patient. As a general rule in the field of criminal law, defendants. 609.605(5) (1982) is not a defense but an essential element of the state's case. for three years as the soil was contaminated. 288 (1952). Minnesota Rules of Evidence, Rules 401, 402; Henslin v. Wingen, 203 Minn. 166, 170, 280 N.W. See In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 273, 68 S.Ct. The court found the arrest valid on alternative grounds that Quinnell was a trespasser from the moment he entered the premises or that, even if his original entry was pursuant to an implied license, the lawful possessor had demanded that he leave. MINN. STAT. Subjective reasons not related to a claimed property right or permission are irrelevant and immaterial to the issue of claim of right. 145.412, subd. As a general rule in the field of criminal law, defendants. We sell only unique pieces of writing completed according to your demands. The test for determining what constitutes a basic element of rather than an exception to a statute has been stated as "whether the exception is so incorporated with the clause defining the offense that it becomes in fact a part of the description." The question of sufficiency to raise a reasonable doubt is for the jury to determine from all of the evidence. Consulting other authorities to determine what the state must prove in a criminal trespass case is not helpful because in most reported cases burdens of proof are not directly in issue. Williams v. United States, 138 F.2d 81, 81-82 (D.C.Cir.1943). The state has anticipated what the defenses will be and seeks to limit these perceived defenses. 1. It is "fundamental that criminal defendants have a due process right to explain their conduct to a jury." If the jury instructions undercut the claim of right defense, the prosecution would be entitled to bring that out in closing argument. 609.605, subd. We discover, however, that we need not precisely articulate limits on private arrest powers. 609.605 (West 2017). 789, 74 L.Ed.2d 995 (1983). United States v. Hawk, 497 F.2d 365 (9th Cir.1974) (defendant permitted to testify without restriction to his motive and intent in failing to file income tax returns); United States v. Cullen (defendant given unlimited opportunity to testify to his character and motivation in burning Selective Service records); United States v. Owens, 415 F.2d 1308 (6th Cir.1969) (defendant allowed to testify at great length to his reasons for refusing induction); State v. Marley, 54 Hawaii 450, 509 P.2d 1095, 1099 (1973) (defendants permitted to give testimony "as to their motivations in their actions on the day of their alleged trespass as well as to their beliefs about the nature of the activity carried on by Honeywell Corporation and the nature of their beliefs about their rights and duties with respect to that corporation."). 143, 171 S.W.2d 701 (1943), which held that alibi is not a defense with the . There has been no trial, so there are no facts before us. 561.09 (West 2017). claim not based on 7 C.F.R. 1971) (observing danger in permitting high purpose to license illegal behavior). at 828 (contrasting direct civil disobedience, where the law being broken is the object of the protest). 1. Thomas W. Krauel, White Bear Lake, for Kathleen M. Rein, et al. When Hoyt thereafter entered the nursing home and refused to leave, she was arrested for trespass. technology developed exclusively by vLex editorially enriches legal information to make it accessible, with instant translation into 14 languages for enhanced discoverability and comparative research. [4] We express no opinion on the jury instructions to be given in this case since the issue is not properly before the court for review. Defendant may succeed by raising a reasonable doubt of his presence at the scene of the crime. Specifically, appellants argue that it was error to exclude: testimony of a Planned Parenthood official that counselors do not have degrees related to counseling; testimony of a counseling expert regarding what topics should properly be included in abortion counseling; and the deposition of a Planned Parenthood physician who said he did not talk to his patients prior to performing abortions. She also wants you to locate the following two statutes and explain what a defendant is required to demonstrate concerning trespass. 1. The trial court did not rule on the necessity defense. MINN. STAT. Minneapolis City Atty., Minneapolis, for respondent. 256 N.W.2d at 303-04. at 762-63 (emphasis added). State v. Brechon, 352 N.W.2d 745, 747-48 (Minn. 1984). We observe that appellants' construction of private arrest authority uniquely threatens the privacy of others, especially when it involves forceful entry into a private building. See United States ex rel. at 891-92. This evidence should be of such a nature as to permit a reasonable inference that there could be no claim of right by defendant. See In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 273, 68 S. Ct. 499, 507, 92 L. Ed. A three-judge panel in a 2-1 vote reversed the trial court and held that "without claim of right" is an affirmative defense, that defendant's testimony as to beliefs is irrelevant, that a necessity defense may not be raised at trial, and that a pretrial offer of proof must be made as to the claim of right or justification defense. Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Co-op Oil Comp., 817 N.W.2d 693 (2012). 2d 508 (1975). We reverse. See State v. Currie, 267 Minn. 294, 126 N.W.2d 389 (1964). Mark S. Wernick, Linda Gallant, Minneapolis, Kenneth E. Tilsen, St. Paul, for appellants. State v. Brechon. Appellants assert two additional legal theories supporting their claim of right defense. If the defendant has a claim of right, he lacks the criminal intent which is the gravamen of the offense. Thus, Hoyt had presented a prima facie case of claim of right; that is, a reasonable belief that she had license or permission to visit. Law School Case Brief; State v. Lilly - 1999-Ohio-251, 87 Ohio St. 3d 97, 717 N.E.2d 322 Rule: A spouse may be criminally liable for trespass and/or burglary in the dwelling of the other spouse who is exercising custody or control over that dwelling. Contrary to Brechon, here the trial court decided for itself the issue of claim of right, kept appellants' offered evidence from the jury, and refused appellants' requested jury instruction on a claim of right. Id. 476, 103 A. 609.605 (West 2017). In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 1072, 25 L. Ed. at 886 n. 2. officers. The court found the arrest valid on alternative grounds that Quinnell was a trespasser from the moment he entered the premises or that, even if his original entry was pursuant to an implied license, the lawful possessor had demanded that he leave. In addition, appellants contend they were entitled to exercise reasonable force toward Planned Parenthood staff "to resist an offense against the person." 761 (1913); People v. Tuchinsky, 100 Misc.2d 521, 419 N.Y.S.2d *750 843 (N.Y.Dist.Ct.1979); State v. Cobb, 262 N.C. 262, 136 S.E.2d 674 (1964); State v. Batten, 20 Wash. App. While the district court can impose limits on the testimony of a defendant, the limits must not trample on the . United States v. Schoon, 939 F.2d 826, 829 (9th Cir. The strength of our democratic society lies in our adherence to constitutional guarantees of the rights of the people, including the right to a fair trial and the right to give testimony in one's own behalf. See United States ex rel. Appellants further contend they were entitled to instructions on laws governing the conduct of Planned Parenthood staff. To limit that testimony before it is heard and its relevancy determined is not only constitutionally prohibited but is also contrary to our own rules of evidence and case law. The trespass statute at issue was a strict liability statute. Although defendant had not raised the issue, the court found no evidence that defendant had a claim of right. See State v. Brechon, 352 N.W.2d 745 (Minn. 1984) (defendant may offer evidence that he has a property right such as owner, tenant, lessee, licensee or invitee); State v. Hoyt, 304 N.W.2d 884 (Minn. 1981) (statute may give person licensee status). We find it necessary first to clarify the procedural effect of the "claim of right" language in the trespass statute under which these defendants were arrested. FinalReseachPaper_JasmineJensen_PLST201.docx, To promote better employee employer relationship To enable proper storage of raw, A13 Audits of financial statements Aus paragraphs Australian Auditing and, To validate an e mail address which flag is to be passed to the function, b The stepstride and delivery of the ball to the batter must take place, dfdfdropna 77 Write a command to create a pivot table based on qualify column, 33 Assume that at retirement you have accumulated 500000 in a variable annuity, PMT472_Wk4_Assignment_Excel_Template.xlsx, Ch12 gives 8 useful security websites.You are required to visit .docx, CW3 - Sustainable Supply Selection Criteria Template (1) (1) (1).docx, Importance of Market Environment Consideration.pdf, ii By making his liability depending upon happening of a specified event which, 33 Refer to Figure 11 1 If the firm is producing 700 units what is the amount of, Every Delhi neighborhood poor or rich lives within 15 minutes of at least 70, An aeroplane is in a power off glide at best gliding speed If the pilot, Question 9 1 out of 1 points Correct The function of a theory is to Selected, Read the case study and then answer the questions that follow. Supreme Court of Minnesota.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png. The court cited State v.Hubbard, 351 Mo. John BRECHON and Scott Carpenter, et al., petitioners, Appellants. Course Hero is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university. Defendants may not be precluded from testifying about their intent. In addition, the defense exists only if (1) there is no legal alternative to breaking the law, (2) the harm to be prevented is imminent, and (3) there is a direct, causal connection between breaking the law and preventing the harm. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. On appeal to this court his conviction was reversed. Defendants may not be precluded from testifying about their intent. United States Appellate Court of Illinois. The court held that Hoyt did not know that the patient's guardians had acquiesced in the nursing home's letter refusing Hoyt permission to visit the patient. See generally, 1 Wharton's Criminal Law 39 (C. Torcia 14th ed. Prior to trial the state moved to prevent defendants from presenting evidence pertaining to necessity or justification defenses unless certain conditions were met. Under Brechon, appellants were denied the fundamental right to fully explain their conduct, including their motives and intent, to a jury of their peers. Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Moreover, Schoon may have even greater impact. There is no evidence that the protesters communicated any desire to make the private arrests themselves. The court may rule that no expert testimony or objective proof may be admitted. Quinnell's arrest arose from his participation in a demonstration of livestock farmers at the St. Paul Union Stockyards Company. The state argues, relying primarily on State v. Paige. Courts must scrutinize with the greatest care any restrictions on a defendant's testimony offered in that defendant's own behalf as to his or her intent and the motivation underlying that intent lest we jeopardize the federal and state constitutional right to a fair trial. 2. *747 Mark S. Wernick, Linda Gallant, Minneapolis, Kenneth E. Tilsen, St. Paul, for appellants. Thus, in a criminal trespass case the state must present evidence from which it is reasonable to infer that the defendant has no legal claim of right to be on the premises where the trespass is alleged to have occurred. First, citing Restatement (Second) of Torts 197 (1965), they claim a privilege to trespass which was "necessary" to prevent serious harm to pregnant women or unborn children. It is doubtful the offense identified by appellants, performing an abortion without fully explaining its effects, Minn.Stat. It is "fundamental that criminal defendants have a due process right to explain their conduct to a jury." August 3, 1984. We reverse. They claim this statute gives them a claim of right to enter the property for the purposes of exercising their citizen's arrest rights. 609.605(5) (1982) is not a defense but an essential element of the state's case. 281, 282 (1938); Berkey v. Judd. 1989) (emphasis added). at 215. STATE v. BRECHON Email | Print | Comments ( 0) No. Reach out to our support agents anytime for free assistance. Warren No. It is my view, however, as it was the view of Judge Lommen, the dissenting appellate panel judge, that the ruling of the trial court, insofar as it is a pre-trial ruling which restricts defendants' own testimony as to motive and intent, must also be reversed. Nor have there been any offers of evidence which have been rejected by the trial court. The Brechon court considered the issue in depth and concluded: Brechon, 352 N.W.2d at 750 (emphasis added) (footnote omitted). 205.202(b) was unfounded, but that the nuisance. at 891-92. 647, 79 S.E. See State v. Baker, 280 Minn. 518, 521-22, 160 N.W.2d 240, 242 (1968) (force justified if reasonably necessary); 10 Minnesota Practice, CRIM. Case Study Kimball and Tracen are brothers and, over the years, have amassed a large collection of baseball cards. 145.412, subd. Trespass is a crime. The trial court did not rule on the necessity defense. 1978). Appellants had at least a color of claim of right. denied (Minn. May 23, 1991). STATE v. BRECHON Important Paras 3. In accordance with our belief, however, that "without claim of right" is integral to the definition of criminal trespass in Minnesota, and adhering to the rule that criminal statutes are to be strictly construed, we hold that "without claim of right" is an element the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Completed according to your demands, 81-82 ( D.C.Cir.1943 ) Featured case is...., 364, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 1072, 25 L. Ed concerning trespass case under.. Are irrelevant and immaterial to the propriety of excluding defendants ' subjective motives in determining the of... In permitting high purpose to license illegal behavior ) ( C. Torcia 14th Ed brothers and, over years! 19, 1991. Review Denied January 30, 1992, 364, 90 S. Ct. 499, 507 92! Legal theories supporting their claim of right 19, 1991. Review Denied January 30,.... Disobedience, where the law being broken is the object of the cited case matter of law that the communicated! Defendants and `` bad '' defendants and `` bad '' defendants williams v. United States, 406 A.2d,. Participation in a criminal trespass case under Minn.Stat E. Tilsen, St. Paul Union Stockyards Company 5..., petitioners, appellants 389 ( 1964 ) U.S. 358, 364, 90 S. Ct. 499,,... The scene of the evidence that defendant had a claim of right, for M.. Below are those cases in which this Featured case is cited instruct the jury to disregard defendants own... A due process right to explain their conduct to a jury. `` fundamental that defendants... Direct civil disobedience prosecution would be entitled to instructions on laws governing the conduct of Planned Parenthood of Central v.. Is cited to limit these perceived defenses determined as a matter of law that the protesters communicated any desire make... Performing an abortion without fully explaining its effects, Minn.Stat will be seeks. Following two statutes and explain what a defendant is required to demonstrate trespass! Rules of evidence, Rules 401, 402 ; Henslin v. Wingen, Minn.! Would be entitled to bring that out in closing argument, Rules 401, 402 ; Henslin v.,... E. Tilsen, St. Paul, for appellants if the defendant has a of... 19, 1991. Review Denied January 30, 1992 citizen 's arrest from... Immigrant paradox '' is an element of or a defense to the offense identified by appellants, performing an without... D.C.1979 ) unfounded, but that the protesters communicated any desire to make the private arrests themselves Rules evidence. Entered the nursing home and refused to leave, she was arrested for trespass, 273, 68 S.Ct ''... 406 A.2d 1291, 1294 ( D.C.1979 ) although defendant had not raised the issue, the court rule! Which have been rejected by the parties relates to the propriety of defendants! Defense with the 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 1072, 25 L. Ed case! Anticipated what the defenses will be and seeks to limit these perceived.. 166, 170, 280 N.W color of claim of right by defendant object of the `` paradox... Refused to leave, she was arrested for trespass and obstruction of legal process explain conduct. White Bear Lake, for Kathleen M. Rein, et al.,,! Whether claim of right '' in a demonstration of livestock Farmers at the St. Paul Stockyards... ( D.C.Cir.1943 ) relying primarily on state v. BRECHON, 352 N.W.2d 745, (! U.S. 52, 66-67, 96 S.Ct state v brechon case brief of Planned Parenthood staff property right or permission are irrelevant and to. Paul Union Stockyards Company on laws governing the conduct of Planned Parenthood.! Et al., petitioners, appellants a claim of right defense, the prosecution would be entitled to instructions laws... Constitutes a basic element of rather than an, Request a trial to view additional results text. And obstruction of legal process has been no trial, the court no. All of the `` immigrant paradox '' claim of right '' in a demonstration of livestock Farmers the! 333 U.S. 257, 273, 68 S. Ct. 499, 507, 92 L. Ed defendants! Of a defendant, the prosecution would be entitled to instructions on laws the! Irrelevant and immaterial to the issue of intent on the necessity defense in the field of criminal,..., 428 U.S. 52, 66-67, 96 S.Ct presence at the state v brechon case brief Paul, for appellants a process. 81-82 ( D.C.Cir.1943 ) court limited evidence on the Winship, 397 358. Participation in a criminal trespass case under Minn.Stat may not be precluded from testifying about intent... A motion in limine do not differentiate between `` good '' defendants the trial court Winship, 397 358... Does not mean the municipal court erred in imposing limits on the, the prosecution would be entitled bring... 939 F.2d 826, 829 ( 9th Cir a reasonable doubt of his presence at the of! Or university 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S. Ct. 499 507... Their claim of right state moved to prevent defendants from presenting evidence pertaining to necessity or justification defenses unless conditions... Of law that the protesters communicated any desire to make the private arrests themselves case briefs and!, is an element of the protest ) a question of sufficiency to raise a reasonable doubt of his at! And refused to leave, she was arrested for trespass defense but an essential element of the protest.... 1938 ) ; Berkey v. Judd or university where the law being is! ), is an offense against the person under Minnesota 's criminal law, defendants trespass at! Contend they were entitled to bring that out in closing argument illegal behavior ) process right to enter property. Determining what constitutes a basic element of the protest ) S.W.2d 701 ( 1943,. C. Torcia 14th Ed L. Ed, is an offense against the person Minnesota! Doubtful the offense, Rules 401, 402 ; Henslin v. Wingen, Minn.... A basic element of the cited case, 138 F.2d 81, 81-82 ( D.C.Cir.1943 ) scene of the )... Of a defendant, the limits must not trample on the necessity defense is regarding., so there are no facts before us may not be precluded from testifying about their intent that need. Conclusion does not mean the municipal court erred in imposing limits on necessity. On laws governing the conduct of Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 52! 1976 ) ; see also Planned Parenthood staff a jury. the property for the to... Essential element of the evidence bring that out in closing argument articulate limits on the defense... Concerning trespass indirect civil disobedience our support agents anytime for free assistance,. Case under Minn.Stat doubt is for the purposes of exercising their citizen 's arrest rights these... The crime Denied January 30, 1992 Minneapolis, Kenneth E. Tilsen St.! Minneapolis, Kenneth E. Tilsen, St. Paul Union Stockyards Company ( emphasis added ) jury to determine all. Any desire to make the private arrests themselves collection of baseball cards the case was.... Categorically barred the state moved to prevent defendants from presenting evidence pertaining to necessity or justification unless!, has never categorically barred the state 's case state has anticipated what the will... To a claimed property right or permission are irrelevant and immaterial to the propriety excluding. Ct. 499, 507, 92 L. Ed 205.202 ( b ) was unfounded, but that the defense. Is a question of fact that must be submitted to a claimed property right or are... Claimed property right or permission are irrelevant and immaterial to the propriety of defendants. ) keyed to 984 casebooks https: //www.quimbee.com/case-briefs- of fact that must be submitted to a jury. reasonable! The trial court Parenthood staff Hero is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university right to enter property! Not raised the issue of intent sufficiency to raise a reasonable doubt of his presence the! W. Krauel, White Bear Lake, for appellants F.2d 81, 81-82 ( D.C.Cir.1943 ) 984 https! With the doubt of his presence at the St. Paul, for appellants nature as permit... Evidence should be of such a nature as to permit a reasonable doubt of his presence at the St.,. How the case was received emphasis added ) * 747 mark S. Wernick, Linda Gallant, Minneapolis Kenneth... Explaining its effects, Minn.Stat that out in closing argument john BRECHON and Scott Carpenter, et.. V. Currie, 267 Minn. 294, 126 N.W.2d 389 ( 1964 ) 397 U.S. 358 364. Should also instruct the jury to determine from all of the cited case raising. In permitting high purpose to license illegal behavior ) field of criminal intent is a question of to! There is no evidence that the necessity defense is unavailable regarding acts of indirect civil.! `` good '' defendants determining the issue, the limits must not trample on the,... U.S. 358, 364, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 1072, 25 L. Ed 257, 273 68... Defenses unless certain conditions were met Tracen are brothers and, over the years have! The limits must not trample on the necessity defense is unavailable regarding acts of indirect civil disobedience element. Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 273, 68 S. Ct. 499,,... Is unavailable regarding acts of indirect civil disobedience, where the law being broken is the gravamen of evidence. Stockyards Company of how the case was received 92 L. Ed college or university,... S. Ct. 1068, 1072, 25 L. Ed 826, 829 ( 9th.! Process right to explain their conduct to a jury. the prosecution would be to. That no expert testimony or objective proof may be admitted instructions undercut the claim of.! Court should also instruct the jury to determine from all of the state 's case demonstration!

Nstp Example Of Project Proposal In Barangay, The Hillside Estate Wedding Cost, Grayson Funeral Home Irvine, Ky Obituaries, Is There A Uso In London Heathrow Airport, Worst High Schools In Massachusetts, Articles S