Court Opinion

ID: 9739572
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:17:43.965019+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:30:25.342676
License: Public Domain

ANDERSON, PAUL H., Justice
(concurring).
I join in Part I of the opinion of Justice Hanson. I also join, for the most part, in Part II.B of Justice Hanson’s opinion. Finally, I agree with the holding in Part III of Justice Hanson’s opinion that Buss-mann’s conviction, based on the evidence presented by the state at this particular trial, violated the First Amendment prohibition of “law[s] respecting an establishment of religion,” as applied to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Because this error was not harmless, I agree that the appropriate remedy is to reverse Buss-mann’s conviction and remand to the district court. I write separately, however, to clarify my view that the unconstitutional state action in this case was the district court’s conviction of Bussmann following this particular trial, not the adoption of the statute by the legislature or the application of this statute to Bussmann’s conduct.
I believe that the view articulated in Part II.A of Justice Hanson’s opinion reads too much into the statute. The psychotherapist provision makes it a crime for a psychotherapist to engage in acts of sexual penetration with his patient during a psychotherapy session or when an ongoing psychotherapist-patient relationship exists. Minn.Stat. § 609.344, subd. 1(h). Similarly, the clergy provision makes it a crime for a member of the clergy to engage in acts of sexual penetration with a person to whom he is providing religious or spiritual advice, aid, or comfort during a private meeting for such purpose or when private meetings for such purpose are ongoing. Minn.Stat. § 609.344, subd. 1(1). Thus, both of these provisions require proof of the same two basic elements: (1) an act of sexual penetration; and (2) the existence of a specific relationship between the two parties.
Psychotherapy is defined as “the professional treatment, assessment, or counseling of a mental or emotional illness, symptom, or condition.” Minn.Stat. § 609.341, subd. 18. The view articulated in Part II.A of Justice Hanson’s opinion reads a “causal connection between the position of the psychotherapist and the sexual conduct” into this definition because the provision requires proof that the patient “suffered from a ‘mental or emotional illness, symptom, or condition.’ ” But the criminal provision does not require proof that such a condition actually exists; rather, it only requires proof of meetings for the purpose *96of treating, assessing, or counseling about such a condition. Indeed, it is possible, following one or more assessment sessions, that no such condition would be diagnosed, yet any act of sexual penetration that occurred during an assessment session or during a period of ongoing assessment sessions would be illegal under the statute. Moreover, the statute does not criminalize all acts of sexual penetration involving individuals with a mental or emotional illness — it only criminalizes such conduct with the psychotherapist. Thus, as I read the statute, the harm targeted by the psychotherapist provision is not the inability of the patient to consent to sexual conduct because of a mental illness, but rather the potential for abuse that exists because of the power imbalance that often exists in the psychotherapist-patient relationship. Subdivision 1(Z) makes the same policy determination with regard to clergy-parishioner relationships.
Based on my reading of section 609.344, subdivision 1(1), courts need not make any findings regarding the religious nature of a clergy-parishioner relationship; rather, the state need only prove ongoing private meetings for the purpose of “seek[ing] or receiv[ing] religious or spiritual advice, aid, or comfort.” Such findings are already made in the context of the clergy evidentiary privilege, see State v. Rhodes, 627 N.W.2d 74, 85 (Minn.2001), and can be made by reference to secular rather than religious principles. This proof avoids any entanglement of the court with religion. Moreover, the record of this case does not suggest any unique circumstances that would require the state to introduce the entangling evidence of religious doctrine in order to prove that Bussmann’s conduct violated section 609.344, subdivision 1(l). Thus, I would hold that Minn.Stat. § 609.344, subd. 1(1), is neither facially unconstitutional nor unconstitutional as applied to Bussmann’s conduct. Instead, I would hold that Bussmann’s conviction violated the Establishment Clause given the particular manner in which the state— based on the presentation of its case against Bussmann — invited the jury to base its verdict on religious principles rather than the secular, neutral criteria set forth in the statute.