State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Bakken
2016 Minn. LEXIS 481
Minn.2016Background
- Between Nov 2012 and Jun 2013, Timothy Bakken downloaded, viewed, and saved seven distinct pornographic images of minors to his personal computer on seven different dates.
- Police seized Bakken’s computer, discovered the seven images, and charged him with seven counts of Possession of Pornographic Work Involving Minors under Minn. Stat. § 617.247, subd. 4(a).
- Bakken pleaded guilty to all seven counts but moved before sentencing arguing (1) the statute’s unit of prosecution is the storage medium (the computer) so only one possession count is permitted, and (2) the seven possessions were part of a single behavioral incident, so only one sentence should be imposed.
- The district court rejected both arguments and imposed concurrent sentences, the longest an executed 51-month term (within the guideline range if convicted on all counts).
- The court of appeals affirmed; the Minnesota Supreme Court granted review and affirmed, holding the statute authorizes one count per distinct pornographic work and the offenses were not a single behavioral incident.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unit of prosecution under Minn. Stat. § 617.247 | State: each distinct pornographic work may be charged separately | Bakken: statute ambiguous; when works are on one computer the unit is the computer, so only one charge | Court: statute unambiguously criminalizes both possession of a pornographic work and possession of a storage medium containing a work; State may charge each work separately |
| Rule of lenity applicability | N/A | Bakken: ambiguity triggers rule of lenity in his favor | Court: statute unambiguous, so rule of lenity does not apply |
| Surplusage / duplication concern | N/A | Bakken: allowing counts per work renders the clause criminalizing possession of the medium superfluous | Court: clauses cover different possessions (work v. medium); hypothetical joint-possession or lack of file access shows non-duplication |
| Single behavioral incident (Minn. Stat. § 609.035) | N/A | Bakken: multiple possessions discovered at same time; should be treated as one incident — time factor should be de-emphasized | Court: offenses completed on different dates and not committed to a single criminal objective; offenses not a single behavioral incident; multiple sentences permitted |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanabria v. United States, 437 U.S. 54 (statutory "unit of prosecution" principle)
- United States v. Universal C.I.T. Credit Corp., 344 U.S. 218 (same statutory-unit analysis)
- United States v. Chipps, 410 F.3d 438 (8th Cir.) (separate counts when Legislature intended separate units)
- State v. Stith, 292 N.W.2d 269 (Minn. 1980) (use of "or" permits charging under alternative statutory clauses separately)
- State v. Jones, 848 N.W.2d 528 (Minn.) (single behavioral-incident factors: time/place)
- State v. Bauer, 792 N.W.2d 825 (Minn.) (single behavioral-incident: single criminal objective test)
- State v. Carlson, 192 N.W.2d 421 (Minn.) (possession discovered once may support single sentence when no other temporal evidence)