State of Minnesota v. Final Exit Network, Inc.
2016 Minn. App. LEXIS 90
| Minn. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Final Exit Network is a Georgia nonprofit that counsels members with incurable conditions and provides information and in-person "exit guides" who rehearse and observe suicides by helium; guides sometimes supplied vendor contacts and checked equipment but did not physically operate the devices.
- D.D., a Final Exit member with chronic pain, received approval and in May 2007 died after placing a helium hood; Final Exit personnel were present, observed, would have corrected hookups, checked her pulse, and removed and discarded equipment afterward.
- The State indicted Final Exit under Minn. Stat. § 609.215, subd. 1 (2014) for intentionally advising, encouraging, or assisting another to take the other’s life; pretrial rulings and appellate history led the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in Melchert‑Dinkel to control interpretation.
- In Melchert‑Dinkel, the Minnesota Supreme Court struck the "advises" and "encourages" provisions as facially unconstitutional but upheld the "assists" provision as constitutional when limited to speech or conduct that provides what another needs to commit suicide and is targeted at a specific individual, including speech instructing suicide methods.
- At trial the district court instructed the jury that to "assist" meant to enable the victim through physical conduct or words specifically directed to that person and that mere moral views or general comfort do not constitute assistance; the jury convicted Final Exit of assisting in a suicide.
Issues
| Issue | Final Exit's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| I. Is § 609.215, subd. 1 facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment? | "Assists" is overbroad and content‑based; statute criminalizes protected speech. | Melchert‑Dinkel controls: "assists" is narrowly tailored to targeted, enabling speech and survives strict scrutiny. | Rejected; bound by Melchert‑Dinkel—"assists" provision is facially constitutional. |
| II. Is § 609.215, subd. 1 unconstitutional as applied to Final Exit? | Applying the statute here is not narrowly tailored and is underinclusive because non‑targeted publications remain lawful. | The State has a compelling interest in preserving life; the statute narrowly restricts only targeted enabling speech and conduct as applied here. | Rejected; statute is constitutional as applied—Final Exit’s conduct constituted targeted, enabling assistance and no less‑restrictive means existed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Melchert‑Dinkel, 844 N.W.2d 13 (Minn. 2014) (holding "assists" survives strict scrutiny when limited to targeted, enabling speech or conduct)
- United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010) (content‑based speech restrictions are presumptively invalid)
- Brown v. Entm’t Merchs. Ass’n, 564 U.S. 786 (2011) (underinclusiveness can invalidate content regulation)
- Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003) (jury instructions expanding a statute’s reach can render it unconstitutional)
- Sable Commc’ns of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115 (1989) (government must use least‑restrictive means for content restrictions)
- City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43 (1994) (underinclusiveness undermines governmental rationale for speech restrictions)