State v. Cox
798 N.W.2d 517
Minn.2011Background
- Cox charged with issuing dishonored checks >$500 under Minn. Stat. 609.535, subd. 2a(a)(1) (felony).
- Five checks totaling $515.83 to Benson merchants; bank marked funds not available; notices mailed; Cox did not pay.
- District court denied equal-protection challenge but certified a question to the court of appeals.
- Court of appeals answered question negatively; Supreme Court granted review.
- Issue: whether penalty disparity between 609.535 and 609.52 violates equal protection as applied to Cox; majority affirms finding no violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does penalty disparity violate equal protection for Cox’s conduct? | Cox argues disparate penalties violate equal protection. | State argues not similarly situated; penalties differ for valid policy reasons. | No equal-protection violation; disparities permissible. |
| Are Cox and theft-by-check offenders similarly situated? | Cox contends she is similarly situated to theft-by-check offenders. | State contends they are not similarly situated due to mens rea and proof differences. | Not similarly situated; disparity not unconstitutional. |
| What constitutional/equal-protection framework applies? | Dissent argues a threshold plus three-part rational-basis approach with hypothetical justifications. | Majority applies threshold similarly-situated test and three-part rational-basis; expresses consistency with case law. | Court adopts threshold then three-part rational-basis approach; allows hypothetical justifications in rational-basis review. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dietz, 264 Minn. 551 (Minn. 1963) (discusses equal protection for different theft values; same conduct under different penalties not automatically violative)
- State v. Roden, 384 N.W.2d 456 (Minn. 1986) (dishonored check is a lesser-included offense of theft by check)
- State v. Behl, 564 N.W.2d 560 (Minn. 1997) (applies federal rational-basis in some sentencing disparity contexts)
- State v. Frazier, 649 N.W.2d 828 (Minn. 2002) (central to whether elements of offenses are the same for similarity inquiry)
- State v. Garcia, 683 N.W.2d 294 (Minn. 2004) (illustrates three-part rational-basis usage with threshold similarly-situated test; juvenile jail credits)
- State v. Barnes, 713 N.W.2d 325 (Minn. 2006) (equal protection where conduct not identical; differences in statutes)
- State v. Benniefield, 678 N.W.2d 42 (Minn. 2004) (applies three-part rational-basis test to sentencing disparity)
- State v. Russell, 477 N.W.2d 886 (Minn. 1991) (disparity case; discusses three-part rational-basis and threshold tests)