From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wicker v. City of Maplewood

Minnesota Court of Appeals
Dec 17, 1985
378 N.W.2d 138 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)

Opinion

No. CX-85-1014.

December 17, 1985.

Appeal from the Municipal Court, Ramsey County, Margaret M. Marrinan, J.

Robert G. Wicker, pro se.

Martin J. Costello, Peterson, Bell Converse, St. Paul, for respondent.

Considered and decided by PARKER, P.J., and FORSBERG and NIERENGARTEN, JJ., with oral argument waived.


SUMMARY OPINION


FACTS

Appellant Robert Wicker, appearing pro se, brought an action for malicious prosecution of a criminal action against the City of Maplewood. Wicker alleged that the prosecution of a citation for failure to display current automobile registration was malicious in that he was neither the driver, operator, nor owner of the vehicle which was cited. Upon trial, the jury by special verdict found that respondent did not institute criminal proceedings against appellant, did not have probable cause to believe appellant was guilty, did not act maliciously, and that the proceedings were not resolved in favor of appellant. Wicker made a motion for a new trial which was denied in all respects.

DECISION

Appellant asserts that the trial court's jury instructions were erroneous, and that the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence and in excluding certain other evidence.

At trial, Wicker needed to prove that the City instituted criminal proceedings against him. The trial court instructed the jury that Minn.R.Crim.P. 23.06 states that "a petty misdemeanor shall not be a crime." Failure to display current automobile registration is a petty misdemeanor. Wicker argues that because he could have been fined for the violation, therefore the City did institute criminal proceedings against him. We find no merit in that contention.

As to the evidentiary issues, appellant has not submitted a full transcript of the trial court proceedings. A party seeking review has the duty to provide the appellate court with a record sufficient to show the alleged errors and all matters necessary to consider the issues. State v. Carlson, 281 Minn. 564, 161 N.W.2d 38 (1968). Error cannot be presumed. Custom Farm Services, Inc. v. Collins, 306 Minn. 571, 238 N.W.2d 608 (1976). Without the requisite trial court transcript, we cannot review evidentiary issues.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Wicker v. City of Maplewood

Minnesota Court of Appeals
Dec 17, 1985
378 N.W.2d 138 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)
Case details for

Wicker v. City of Maplewood

Case Details

Full title:Robert G. WICKER, Appellant, v. CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, Respondent

Court:Minnesota Court of Appeals

Date published: Dec 17, 1985

Citations

378 N.W.2d 138 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)

Citing Cases

Wicker v. City of Maplewood

Appellant's motion for a new trial was denied, and this court affirmed. See Wicker v. City of Maplewood, 378…

Bishop v. L.B. Sales, Inc.

Appellant has the burden and duty to provide the appellate court with a record sufficient to show the alleged…