January 29, 2024, Minnesota Court of Appeals Case Update:

Minnesota Court of Appeals Releases Two Precedential Criminal Law Opinions:

State v. Seivers, A22-0054 (Minn. App. Jan. 29, 2024);

State v. Ickler, A22-0079 (Minn. App. Jan. 29, 2024)

First, in State v. Seivers, A22-0054 (Minn. App. Jan. 29. 2024), the court of appeals concluded that the State can prosecute an allegation of child criminal sexual conduct in the county where the criminal act took place or in the county where the child was found, including where the child lives.  Ordinarily, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the criminal act took place in the county where the charges were filed. 

In Seivers, the court of appeals relied on the “child abuse” exception to the venue requirement under section 627.15, which states:

A criminal action arising out of an incident of alleged child abuse may be prosecuted either in the county where the alleged abuse occurred or the county where the child is found.

Minn. Stat. § 627.15.

The court of appeals concluded that, because criminal sexual conduct against a child constitutes “child abuse,” the “child abuse” exception to the venue requirement applies.  

The court then determined that, because the child’s home was in Stearns County, the State presented sufficient evidence to establish the venue was Stearns County.

In short, when a criminal charge includes the abuse of a child, the case can be prosecuted in the county where the criminal act occurred or where the child is found—including the county where the child’s home is located.  

Court of Appeals Opinion (mncourts.gov)

Second, in State v. Ickler, the court of appeals concluded that, when a district court issues an ex parte harassment restraining order (HRO), but the court does not issue a new HRO after the contested hearing on the harassment petition, the ex parte HRO is no longer in place after the hearing. See Minn. Stat. § 609.748, subd. 6(b) (HRO statute).

Because there was not an HRO in place when Ickler allegedly violated the ex parte order after the contested hearing, Ickler did not violate an HRO and therefore did not commit the crime of stalking in violation of Minnesota Statutes section 609.749, subdivision 5(a), (b).

Court of Appeals Opinion (mncourts.gov)