Title: State v. Bicknese

State: minnesota

Issuer: Minnesota Supreme Court

Document:

285 N.W.2d 684 (1979) STATE of Minnesota, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Lloyd D. BICKNESE, Defendant-Appellant. No. 50516. Supreme Court of Minnesota. November 16, 1979. *685 Elkins & Youngquist and Steven C. Youngquist, Rochester, for defendant-appellant. Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., Thomas L. Fabel, Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard D. Hodsdon, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Dewayne P. Mattson, County Atty., and Raymond F. Schmitz, Asst. County Atty., Rochester, for plaintiff-respondent. Considered and decided by the court en banc without oral argument. SHERAN, Chief Justice. This is a prosecution of defendant for criminal sexual conduct in the second degree, Minn.Stat. § 609.343(a) (1978), specifically, for engaging in "sexual contact" with another person where the complainant is under 13 years of age and the actor is more than 36 months older. The district court has certified to this court for pretrial decision pursuant to R. 29.02, subd. 4, R.Crim.P., a question whether Minn.Stat. § 609.341, subd. 11 which, in defining "sexual contact" as including certain specified nonconsensual touchings, uses the qualifying phrase "if the acts can reasonably be construed as being for the purpose of satisfying the actor's sexual or aggressive impulses" is unconstitutional and, if so, whether the statute must therefore be struck down as void rather than given a saving interpretation or construction. The district court, while denying the defense motion to dismiss and stating his intent to instruct in the manner ordered in State v. Tibbetts, 281 N.W.2d 499 (Minn.1979), certified the issue as important and doubtful. We affirm the order denying the motion to dismiss and remand for trial. Recently, in State v. Tibbetts, supra, we reversed the convictions of a defendant for second and fourth degree criminal sexual conduct, which are offenses involving "sexual contact," and granted a new trial on the ground that the instruction of the trial court, which included the previously alluded to qualifying phrase taken from § 609.341, subd. 11, had the effect of obscuring and diluting the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In doing so, we stated as follows: Defendant contends that § 609.341, subd. 11, must be struck down as being completely void rather than saved by simply omitting the offending language from the jury instruction. We implicitly rejected this approach in Tibbetts, and we now do so explicitly for the reason that the statute, as construed by this court, does not infringe upon defendant's right not to be convicted on proof less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Remanded for trial.