State v. Garcia-Gutierrez
2014 Minn. LEXIS 185
Minn.2014Background
- Four respondents were charged with first-degree burglary under Minn. Stat. § 609.582, subd. 1(b) after a Shakopee home was burglarized and a locked safe containing a .45-caliber handgun was stolen and later opened.
- Police later found respondents with most stolen property, the opened safe, and the handgun; State alleged respondents "possessed" the gun during the burglary.
- Respondents moved to dismiss first-degree burglary counts for lack of probable cause, arguing they did not know the gun was in the safe until after the burglary was complete.
- The district court granted dismissal, holding possession under subd. 1(b) requires knowing possession; the court of appeals affirmed.
- The Minnesota Supreme Court granted review to decide whether subd. 1(b) requires knowledge of possession of the dangerous weapon.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Respondents) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Minn. Stat. § 609.582, subd. 1(b) requires a mens rea for possession of a dangerous weapon | The statute is plain: burglary requires mens rea for entry/intent, but the possession-enhancement (possession when entering or while in building) contains no mens rea and should be applied as written | Possession-element is ambiguous and, under precedent, courts should imply a knowledge requirement for possession of weapons; rule of lenity favors requiring knowledge | The court held subd. 1(b) is unambiguous and does not require knowledge of possession; no additional mens rea for the weapon-enhancement is implied |
| Whether prior cases implying mens rea for possession (e.g., weapon/controlled-substance possession statutes) compel implying knowledge here | The underlying burglary offense already requires mens rea (no strict liability); enhancement need not carry separate mens rea | Respondents rely on cases imposing knowing-possession requirements to avoid strict liability and absurd penalties for unaware burglars | Court distinguished those cases (they involved standalone possession crimes); here possession is an enhancement to burglary, so those precedents do not control |
| Whether reading the statute to allow conviction without knowing possession leads to absurd or unconstitutional results | State: plain language controls; enhancement targets increased risk regardless of knowledge | Respondents: doubling of maximum penalty (from 10 to 20 years) based on an item the burglar did not know about is absurd and defeats deterrence purpose | Court: "absurd results" doctrine is narrowly applied; unknowing possession can still increase risk (e.g., weapon discovered during struggle), so the plain reading stands |
| Whether statutory context (other alternatives in subd. 1(b)) implies a knowledge requirement | State: alternatives (real weapon, article fashioned to appear as weapon, explosive) are distinct; one alternative might require knowledge but that does not import knowledge into others | Respondents: phrasing like "used or fashioned" implies a level of awareness that should carry over to the "dangerous weapon" clause | Court: alternatives are disjunctive; legislature did not intend to require knowing possession of an actual dangerous weapon |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ndikum, 815 N.W.2d 816 (Minn. 2012) (held knowing possession required for pistol-in-public offense)
- In re C.R.M., 611 N.W.2d 802 (Minn. 2000) (required knowledge for possession of a knife on school grounds)
- State v. Benniefield, 678 N.W.2d 42 (Minn. 2004) (no additional mens rea required for school-zone location enhancement once possession mens rea exists)
- Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (U.S. 1994) (principle that mens rea is generally required for criminal liability)
- State v. Evans, 756 N.W.2d 854 (Minn. 2008) (absence of knowledge language indicates no knowledge requirement for certain statutory elements)
- Fiorina (Florine) v. State, 226 N.W.2d 609 (Minn. 1975) (possession of controlled substances requires knowing possession)