State v. Melchert-Dinkel
844 N.W.2d 13
| Minn. | 2014Background
- Melehert-Dinkel posed as a depressed nurse to engage suicide-vulnerable individuals posting online.
- He corresponded with Drybrough (UK) and Kajouji (Canada) and urged them to kill themselves.
- Drybrough committed suicide four days after their last exchange; Kajouji died by ice-bridge method weeks later.
- Law-enforcement traced communications to Melchert-Dinkel’s IP address after concerns about online predation.
- He was convicted in Rice County District Court on two counts of aiding suicide under Minn. Stat. § 609.215, subd. 1.
- The court of appeals upheld a broad First Amendment challenge to the statute; the Minnesota Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 609.215, subd. 1, violates the First Amendment as applied. | State argues speech is unprotected when it is integral to criminal conduct, incitement, or fraud. | Melchert-Dinkel contends the speech does not fit exceptions and the statute is overbroad. | Partially constitutional; statute can prosecute for assisting, but not for advising or encouraging. |
| Whether the advising and encouraging provisions are unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. | State asserts all three terms target conduct aiding suicide. | Speech advising or encouraging is protected and overly broad. | Advising and encouraging are severed as unconstitutional; narrowly drawn assisting remains. |
| Whether severability preserves a valid portion of the statute. | State contends the remaining valid provision should stand. | Invalid portions cannot be severed if inseparable or incomplete. | Severance allowed; assisting remains valid while advising/encouraging are excised. |
| Whether remand to determine if Melchert-Dinkel actually assisted is appropriate. | State argues remand is necessary to prove all elements. | Remand would be wasteful given focus on advising/encouraging and the district court’s findings. | Remand ordered to determine if assisting occurred consistent with opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490 (Supreme Court, 1949) (speech integral to criminal conduct exception)
- Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (Supreme Court, 1969) (incitement standard for unlawful advocacy)
- Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (Supreme Court, 1973) (imminent-lawless-action rule for incitement)
- Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (Supreme Court, 2010) (recognition of potential unprotected categories of speech)
- Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537 (Supreme Court, 2012) (false-speech limits under strict scrutiny context)
- Glucksberg v. Washington, 521 U.S. 702 (Supreme Court, 1997) (assisted-suicide prohibition and rational-basis/history)
- Planned Parenthood Ass’n of Kansas City v. Ashcroft, 462 U.S. 476 (Supreme Court, 1983) (compelling-interest justification for speech restrictions)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (Supreme Court, 1964) (constitutional protection of robust debate)
- State v. Crawley, 819 N.W.2d 94 (Minn. 2012) (content-based prosecution standards balancing)