State v. Nelson
842 N.W.2d 433
| Minn. | 2014Background
- Larry Nelson was court-ordered to pay child support beginning in 1993 and stopped paying circa 1997; by April 2008 he owed approximately $83,470.27. During the charged period (before Apr. 12, 2007–Apr. 30, 2008) he paid only $41.10 once and was ordered to pay $378/month (including arrears payment).
- The State charged Nelson under Minn. Stat. § 609.375, subd. 1 and enhanced subdivisions (gross misdemeanor/felony) for failure "to provide care and support" when legally obligated and for >180 days of nonpayment.
- Nelson moved to dismiss arguing the complaint failed to allege omission of both "care" and "support." The district court denied dismissal, excluded evidence of nonmonetary care, and Nelson stipulated facts at a bench trial and was convicted of felony nonsupport; sentence stayed and probation imposed.
- The court of appeals affirmed, reading "care and support" to mean financial obligations only; this court granted review of whether the statute requires failure to provide both care and support or only one.
- The Minnesota Supreme Court held the statutory phrase ambiguous and applied the rule of lenity, concluding the State must prove the defendant knowingly omitted and failed to provide both care and support; because State presented no evidence of omitted nonmonetary care, Nelson's conviction was reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Minn. Stat. § 609.375(1) requires proof of omission/failure to provide both "care" and "support" or only one | State: "care and support" may be read conjunctively under logic (De Morgan) to criminalize failure to provide either care or support — proof of nonpayment alone suffices | Nelson: statute requires omission of both — "care" means nonmonetary (supervision/parenting) and "support" means monetary; must prove both omissions | Court: statute ambiguous; apply rule of lenity for criminal statute and adopt defendant-favorable reading — State must prove omission/failure to provide both care and support |
| Whether dictionary/canonical construction favors monetary-only meaning | State/court of appeals: historical usage equates phrase with financial obligations | Nelson: ordinary meaning supports distinct nonmonetary care obligation; district court improperly excluded evidence of nonmonetary care | Court: both readings reasonable; ambiguity remains after canons; apply lenity in favor of defendant |
| Applicability of surplusage and legal-doublet canons | Dissent: "care and support" is longstanding term of art/doublet referring to financial support; surplusage canon inapplicable | Majority: treating "care" as redundant conflicts with textual variations; cannot assume legal doublet here without analysis | Court: presumption against surplusage supports reading "care" and "support" as distinct; but ambiguity persists; lenity controls |
| Whether exclusion of nonmonetary-care evidence requires reversal on other grounds | State: exclusion proper if statute criminalizes nonpayment alone | Nelson: exclusion prevented him from defending on nonmonetary-care basis | Court: decision on sufficiency of evidence moots ruling on evidentiary exclusion; did not rule on abuse of discretion regarding exclusion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hayes, 826 N.W.2d 799 (Minn. 2013) (de novo review of statutory interpretation in criminal context)
- Larson v. State, 790 N.W.2d 700 (Minn. 2010) (apply plain meaning when only one reasonable interpretation exists)
- Baker v. Ploetz, 616 N.W.2d 263 (Minn. 2000) (canon against surplusage in statutory construction)
- Famam v. Linden Hills Congregational Church, 149 N.W.2d 689 (Minn. 1967) (conjunctive "and" requires concurrence of both grounds)
- Dean v. United States, 556 U.S. 568 (2009) (rule of lenity applies if grievous ambiguity remains after other canons)
- United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507 (2008) (rule of lenity favors defendant-friendly interpretation)
- Freeman v. Quicken Loans, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 2034 (2012) (presumption against surplusage may not defeat recognition of lawyerly doublets)
- Wiebke v. State, 191 N.W. 249 (Minn. 1922) (historical usages of "care and support" in Minnesota jurisprudence)