State v. Rick
2013 Minn. LEXIS 375
| Minn. | 2013Background
- Rick was convicted of attempted first-degree assault by transferring a communicable disease under Minn. Stat. 609.2241, subd. 2(2); the jury found him not guilty under subd. 2(1).
- The court of appeals reversed Rick’s conviction under subd. 2(2).
- Rick learned he is HIV positive in 2006 and, after counseling, engaged in consensual sex with D.B. starting in 2009.
- D.B. tested HIV positive in October 2009, and Rick and D.B. had additional consensual sexual acts afterward.
- The State charged Rick with two possible subd. 2(1) and 2(2) theories; the district court bifurcated the issues for the jury.
- The district court sentenced Rick to 49 months, stayed for 5 years, after a jury verdict of guilty under subd. 2(2) and not guilty under subd. 2(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does subd. 2(2) apply to sexual conduct? | State argues subd. 2(2) covers all transfers, including sperm via sex. | Rick argues subd. 2(2) does not apply to sexual conduct and is ambiguous. | Ambiguous; 2(2) does not plainly apply to sexual conduct. |
| How should the ambiguity be resolved? | State relies on plain language and legislative history to interpret broadly. | Rick relies on rule of lenity and history to narrow interpretation. | Lenity used; court adopts the narrower interpretation. |
| What is the court’s interpretation of ‘transfer’ in 2(2)? | Broad common meaning; would include transfer of sperm via sex. | Special meaning: transfer means donation/exchange for value in medical context. | Adopts narrow meaning: donation or exchange for value of blood, sperm, organs, or tissue. |
| What are the constitutional implications addressed by the State’s appeal after narrowing? | Constitutional challenges should be resolved if statute applies to conduct. | No need to reach constitutional issues since statute narrowed to donative transfers. | Constitutional issues not reached; statute interpreted narrowly. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Young, 268 N.W.2d 428 (Minn. 1978) (statutory interpretation guidance)
- State v. Leathers, 799 N.W.2d 606 (Minn. 2011) (statutory terms and plain meaning; ambiguity handling)
- State v. Wertheimer, 781 N.W.2d 158 (Minn. 2010) (context and associated-words canon)
- State v. Maurstad, 733 N.W.2d 141 (Minn. 2007) (rule of lenity in resolving ambiguity)
- State v. Mauer, 741 N.W.2d 107 (Minn. 2007) (legislative history and intent considerations)