State v. Tenerelli

598 N.W.2d 668, 1999 Minn. LEXIS 518, 1999 WL 570972
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedAugust 5, 1999
DocketC3-98-318
StatusPublished
Cited by49 cases

This text of 598 N.W.2d 668 (State v. Tenerelli) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Tenerelli, 598 N.W.2d 668, 1999 Minn. LEXIS 518, 1999 WL 570972 (Mich. 1999).

Opinions

OPINION

BLATZ, C.J.

Appellant, Anthony Tenerelli, was convicted of assault in the second and fifth degrees for an attack on Txawj Xiong and sentenced to 73 months in prison. Txawj Xiong then filed a victim impact statement and a request for restitution pursuant to Minn.Stat. §§ 611A.04 and 611A.045 (1996). He requested restitution for various expenses, including those relating to a traditional Hmong ceremony known as Hu Plig. Hu Plig involves the sacrifice of live animals to heal the soul of someone who has been physically and emotionally harmed. The trial court found that Txawj Xiong was entitled to restitution for the majority of his expenses, including most of the expenses relating to the Hu Plig ceremony. Appellant appealed the portion of the trial court’s order granting restitution for expenses relating to the Hu Plig ceremony.1 The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s order and this appeal followed. See State v. Tenerelli, 583 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. App.1998).

Appellant claims that section 611A.04 does not allow the state to order restitution for the Hu Plig ceremony. Further, appellant claims that if section 611A.04 does allow the state to order restitution for the Hu Plig ceremony, then the section as applied violates the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution and article 1, section 16, of the Minnesota Constitution because Hu Plig is a religious ceremony. We hold that section 611A.04 allows the trial court to order restitution [670]*670for the Hu Plig ceremony. We further hold that appellant failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that Txawj Xiong’s Hu Plig ceremony was religious and thus the Establishment Clause is not implicated.

Appellant was convicted of second and fifth degree assault for his role in an attack on Txawj Xiong. Txawj Xiong suffered two stab wounds in his back that required sutures. The stabbing occurred in front of Txawj Xiong’s wife and son. Following appellant’s conviction, he was sentenced to 73 months in prison. Txawj Xiong filed a victim impact statement, a request for restitution, and an affidavit pursuant to sections 611A.04 and 611A.045. He requested restitution to repair his automobile that was damaged in the assault and to replace his T-shirt that was ruined as a result of the stabbing. He also requested restitution for expenses relating to the Hu Plig ceremony.

The victim impact statement, prepared by the corrections department and filed with the trial court, relied on the expertise of William Yang of the Hmong American Partnership. Yang was contacted by a probation department official to provide information on the Hu Plig ceremony. According to information provided by Yang in the victim impact statement, Hu Plig is a healing ceremony “to restore the soul of a victim, normally a person who has been physically or emotionally traumatized.” Yang explained the “deeply held belief, particularly among elders of the Hmong community, that without the restoration ceremony the person will become sick and eventually die.” The ceremony is overseen by a shaman, who is a spiritual leader in the Hmong community.

The Hu Plig ceremony involves the sacrifice of animals, and for Txawj Xiong’s ceremony a cow, a pig, and two chickens were used. Family and close friends typically attend, and the beneficiary of the ceremony provides food for the guests. Txawj Xiong’s expenses for the ceremony were for a suit and shirt to be worn during the ceremony, the animals for sacrifice, a pig to roast, and the costs incurred to pay a shao woman to conduct the ceremony. When added to the other expenses resulting from the assault, Txawj Xiong’s reported expenses totaled $2,304.61, itemized as follows:

$15.00 Replacement T-shirt
$894.46 Automobile repair
$380.00 Suit for Hu Plig ceremony
$20.00 Shirt for Hu Plig ceremony
$540.00 Cow for sacrifice for Hu Plig ceremony
$90.00 Pig for sacrifice for Hu Plig ceremony
$10.00 Two chickens for sacrifice for Hu Plig ceremony
$155.15 Roast Pig for Hu Plig ceremony
$200.00 Shao woman to conduct Hu Plig ceremony

Appellant objected to all of the expenses relating to the Hu Plig ceremony, and the trial court held a hearing to determine restitution on August 28, 1997. At the hearing, the court noted for the record that a victim impact statement had been submitted to the court, which included the information provided by Yang. The trial court went on to read the portion of the victim impact statement regarding the Hu Plig ceremony into the hearing record.

In opposing Txawj Xiong’s request for restitution, appellant presented testimony from Neng Xiong, a native Laotian familiar with the Hmong culture. Neng Xiong had lived in the United States for 13 years, and had earned a bachelor’s degree in sociology, a master’s degree in cultural anthropology, and was pursuing a law degree at the time of the hearing. In addition to his formal education, he was raised in a traditional Hmong family and his father was a shaman.

Neng Xiong testified that 90 percent of the Hmong people living in the United States over the age of 402 who have not converted to Christianity still believe in the traditional Hmong practices and ceremonies. Neng Xiong agreed with Yang’s general description of the Hu Plig ceremony. Specifically, when questioned by appellant on redirect examination, Neng Xiong declined to characterize Hu Plig as a religious ceremony.

[671]*671Neng Xiong further testified that the number of animals needed for a Hu Plig ceremony depends on the severity of the victim’s injuries. Based on his consultations with three elders in the Hmong community, he understood that the sacrifice of four animals would be appropriate for a “major” injury. However, he did not believe that the sacrifice of all four animals was necessary in the instant case because Txawj Xiong sustained what Neng Xiong characterized as a “medium” injury.

Following the hearing, the trial court issued an order adopting the testimony of Neng Xiong, the victim impact statement, the request for restitution and affidavit as the court’s findings of facts. The court then concluded that Txawj Xiong was entitled to an order for restitution, and awarded restitution in the amount of $1,894.51. The court disallowed restitution for the suit and shirt because those items would be subject to future use. Further, the court did not allow restitution for the two chickens, because Neng Xiong’s testimony demonstrated that the sacrifice of the chickens would be excessive given Txawj Xiong’s injuries. Thus, the trial court ordered restitution for the following losses:

$ 15.00 Replacement T-shirt
$894.46 Automobile repair
$629.90 3 Cow and pig for sacrifice for Hu Plig ceremony
$155.15 Roast Pig for Hu Plig ceremony
$200.00 Shao woman to conduct Hu Plig ceremony

As noted earlier, appellant is only challenging those portions of the restitution order that result from the Hu Plig ceremony, totaling $985.05.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State of Minnesota v. Almanzo Ousley Cotton
Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 2023
State of Minnesota v. Emile Rey
890 N.W.2d 135 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 2017)
State of Minnesota v. John William Zastrow
Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mary Marie Garner
Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 2016
State of Minnesota v. Robert Neil Ackland
Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 2016
State of Minnesota v. Morrell Grant
Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 2016
State of Minnesota v. Berry Alan Willis
883 N.W.2d 838 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 2016)
State of Minnesota v. Ishamel Portwood Middlebrook
Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 2016
State of Minnesota v. William Heminchi Underhill
Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 2016
State of Minnesota v. Doan Meshell Engel
Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 2016
Tony Lee Love v. State of Minnesota
Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Roy Becker
Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kenneth E. Andersen
871 N.W.2d 910 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2015)
Michael Anthony Powell v. State of Minnesota
Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 2015
Peter Loren Martel v. State of Minnesota
Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Wayne Riggs
865 N.W.2d 679 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2015)
State of Minnesota v. Javier Rodriguez
863 N.W.2d 424 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 2015)
State of Minnesota v. Sara Ann Berkness
Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 2015

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
598 N.W.2d 668, 1999 Minn. LEXIS 518, 1999 WL 570972, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-tenerelli-minn-1999.