816 N.W.2d 703
Minn. Ct. App.2012Background
- Melchert-Dinkel sent online messages to two suicidally inclined individuals, Drybrough (England) and Kajouji (Canada), encouraging suicide and promoting hanging as the method; Drybrough hanged himself and Kajouji later drowned after communications.
- Minnesota charged Melchert-Dinkel with two counts of advising and encouraging suicide under Minn. Stat. § 609.215, subd. 1 (2004); district court convicted him over First Amendment objections.
- Melchert-Dinkel raised facial (overbreadth/vagueness) and as-applied First Amendment challenges to § 609.215, subd. 1.
- The district court denied the motion to dismiss; a stipulated-facts trial followed, resulting in convictions.
- The appellate court upheld the convictions, holding the statute not facially unconstitutional and not unconstitutionally applied to Melchert-Dinkel’s conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Minn. Stat. § 609.215, subd. 1, facially vague or overbroad? | Melchert-Dinkel argues the statute is overbroad and vague. | Melchert-Dinkel contends the statute restricts First Amendment speech. | No; statute is not facially vague or overbroad. |
| Are Melchert-Dinkel’s communications protected by the First Amendment as applied? | Melchert-Dinkel asserts his communications are protected speech. | The state argues the speech is not protected as it promotes suicide. | Not protected; the speech is not within First Amendment protection. |
Key Cases Cited
- Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490 (S. Ct. 1949) (speech integral to unlawful conduct not protected)
- New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (U.S. 1982) (exclusion of child-pornography from First Amendment protection)
- Glicksberg? Glucksberg v. Washington, 521 U.S. 702 (U.S. 1997) (states may ban assisted suicide; public policy interest)
- Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (U.S. 1969) (incitement test for imminent lawless action)
- Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (U.S. 2002) (vagueness/overbreadth considerations in context of speech restrictions)
- United States v. Stevens, 130 S. Ct. 1577 (U.S. 2010) (limits on protection for certain categories of speech)