State v. Basal, Minn.Ct.App., 3/31/2009. I'm sorry, but I'm only hitting the high spots here; if you want to know the gritty details you'll have to read the Opinion. Ms. Basal receives public assistance benefits, has for years. Annually, she reported her eligibility for continued benefits, including a listing of assets, like cars. She reported having a 1997 Plymouth Voyager; she did not report the other three cars, one of which was a 1998 Mazda 626, that she also owned. Had she done so, she would not have ben eligible for benefits. Ms. Basel opted for a bench trial on charges of wrongfully obtaining public assistance; the bench convicted her. The issue at trial an on appeal was how to treat the value of her vehicles in determining whether she had too many assets to remain eligible for assistance.
There are limits on what assets a recipient of public assistance may have, and the value of those assets. One such asset is a car. The legislature determines whether and how assets, like Mazda 626's, affects a person's eligibility for public assistance. Minn.Stat. 256J.20, subd. 3. After her conviction, Ms. Basal challenged this statute as unconstitutionally vague. As best I can determine, the first $7,500.00 of a vehicle's market value doesn't count in asset calculations; all amounts above that do count. Ms. Basal argued that because other assets - that aren't cars - are treated differently there is either a due process or an equal protection violation. The appellate court rejected this argument.
Ms. Basal also argued that she should have got the benefit of a subsequent amendment - that is, it was enacted after the period during which the state alleged that she was unlawfully receiving benefits - to the vehicle asset determination, in which case she would be eligible for benefits. The appellate court rejects this argument as well, although it suggests that the amendment could impact any restitution obligation.
No comments:
Post a Comment