February 5, 2024, Minnesota Court of Appeals Case Update:
Today, February 5, 2024, the Minnesota Court of Appeals released three precedential opinions.
State v. Plancarte, A23-0158 -N.W.2d- (Minn. App. Feb. 5, 2024)
In Plancarte, a divided panel concluded that a woman’s intentional display of her fully exposed breasts in a parking lot of a convenience store during routine business hours constitutes willful and lewd exposure of her private parts under the indecent-exposure statute—Minnesota Statutes section 617.23, subdivision 1(1) (2020)—which states:
“[a] person who commits . . . the following act[] in any public place, or in any place where others are present, is guilty of a misdemeanor: . . . willfully and lewdly exposes the person’s body, or private parts thereof.”
Judge Bratvold dissented from the majority opinion.
Court of Appeals Opinion (mncourts.gov)
State v. Garza, A23-0129 -N.W.2d- (Minn. App. Feb. 5, 2024)
In Garza, the court of appeals concluded that when a defendant is on trial for escape from custody, following a temporary leave granted for a limited period under Minnesota Statutes section 609.485, subdivisions 1 and 2(1), the defendant is entitled to have the district court instruct the jury that the State has the burden to prove that his failure to return was intentional and voluntary. In other words, the escape-from-custody statute includes a mens rea element that must be included within the trial court’s instructions to the jury.
Court of Appeals Opinion (mncourts.gov)
State v. Williams, A23-0200 -N.W.2d- (Minn. App. Feb. 5, 2024)
In Williams, the court of appeals reached two conclusions. First, under the first-degree criminal sexual conduct statute, section 609.341, subdivision 3, the infliction of bodily harm alone constitutes “force.” Therefore, the factfinder does not need to find that the infliction of bodily harm caused a victim to submit to penetration to meet the statutory definition.
Second, the exception to multiple convictions and sentences in section 609.035, subdivision 6, does not apply when the State charges alternative theories for a committing a single act of criminal sexual conduct.
