State of Minnesota v. Russell Dennis Farrell
A16-860
| Minn. Ct. App. | Dec 27, 2016Background
- Undercover Rochester police officer posted an online ad soliciting sexual services and arranged a meeting; defendant Russell Farrell called, negotiated a half-hour "donation," and arrived at the hotel room.
- Surveillance observed Farrell pick up a condom and remove shirt/shoes; officers entered and arrested him; police found $100 on his person and $40 in his shoe.
- Farrell was charged with patronage of a prostitute in a public place under Minn. Stat. § 609.324; statutory definitions for "prostitute" and "sexual contact" were central to the dispute.
- At trial, defense argued the officer had to be an "actual prostitute" for conviction; prosecutor rebutted that the law does not require the officer actually be a prostitute, only that the defendant believed she was one or that she was hired/offered to be hired.
- The district court denied defense objections at trial; jury convicted Farrell; on posttrial motion the court granted a new trial, reasoning the prosecutor’s rebuttal argument may have misled the jury about the law.
- The state appealed the grant of a new trial; Minnesota Court of Appeals questioned jurisdiction and considered whether the state has an appeal as of right when a district court orders a new trial based on an "important or doubtful" question of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the state may appeal as of right from an order granting a new trial based on a district court statement that it relied exclusively on an important or doubtful question of law | State: Rule 28.04(1)(7) permits appeal where district court states order is based exclusively on an important/doubtful question of law | Farrell: District court’s order did not identify a single such question or explain why it was important/doubtful; therefore no appeal as of right | Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the district court failed to identify the precise question of law or explain why it was important/doubtful |
| Whether an undercover officer can meet the statutory definition of "prostitute" for purposes of patronage | State: Prosecutor’s rebuttal correctly stated that law does not require an officer be an "actual prostitute" | Farrell: Defense contended "actual prostitute" was required; prosecutor misstated law | Court: District court correctly concluded statute’s plain language allows an undercover officer to meet the definition; prosecutor did not misstate that point |
| Whether prosecutor mischaracterized the law by suggesting defendant’s belief that the officer was a prostitute could satisfy the statute | State: Argument was a rebuttal to defense’s incorrect claim; any confusion was fact-specific and not an important/doubtful legal question | Farrell: Prosecutor converted statutory "prostitute" into "person the actor believes to be a prostitute," which is legally incorrect and prejudicial | Court: District court did not identify or justify that precise legal question as the sole basis for granting a new trial; even if identified, court found the issue not sufficiently important or doubtful to permit an appeal as of right |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Rourke, 773 N.W.2d 913 (Minn. 2009) (limits on state’s right to appeal in criminal matters; appeal must be authorized by statute or rule)
- State v. Gilmartin, 550 N.W.2d 294 (Minn. App. 1996) (rules granting prosecutorial appeal rights are strictly construed)