Court Opinion

ID: 9743101
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:25:32.830826+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:39.214962
License: Public Domain

*906NIERENGARTEN, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s reversal of the double durational departure from the presumptive sentence.
In imposing its sentence, the sentencing court referred specifically to the following three reasons to support its departure: 1) the vulnerability of the victim due to age; 2) the vulnerability of the victim due to the reduction of her capacity because of the beer furnished to her; and 3) the fact that the incident occurred in an area of assumed safety, i.e., zone of privacy. The trial court also referred to O’Brien’s prior felony conviction for an offense in which the victim was injured.
The facts of this case support the trial court’s determination that the complainant here was especially vulnerable because of her age and O’Brien used her youthfulness to his advantage. “The vulnerability due to age factor as justifying a departure refers to vulnerability that is ‘exploited in order to commit a criminal act.’ ” State v. Saharath, 355 N.W.2d 312, 314 (Minn.Ct.App.1984). The trial court saw the victim, heard her testimony and was in the best position to judge whether her youth was unfairly exploited.
The cases cited by the majority do not hold that, as a matter of law, a 14 year old rape victim is not particularly vulnerable. The victim’s age in this case was properly considered. State v. Johnson, 327 N.W.2d 580 (Minn.1982), cited by the majority for the proposition that the age of a 12 year old victim cannot be used as an aggravating factor where the threshold is 13, is not applicable to the facts of this case. In Johnson, the age of the victim was an element of the crime and, therefore, not a factor which could be used for departure. In the present case, however, the victim’s age is not an element for conviction. See Minn.Stat. § 609.342(e)(i) (Supp.1983).
Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines II.D. 2(b)(1) indicates that the victim’s vulnerability due to “reduced physical or mental capacity, which was known or should have been known to the offender” is an aggravating factor. Knowing that complainant had drunk four to five glasses of beer and was therefore vulnerable due to reduced capacity is the aggravating factor under the guidelines. Nothing requires a victim to be incapacitated as the majority implies. There is a basis for concluding that the consumption of alcohol was a substantial factor in defendant’s accomplishing sexual penetration. See State v. Gardner, 328 N.W.2d 159, 162 (Minn.1983).
The trial court properly concluded that the rape occurred in an area complainant assumed to be safe (zone of privacy). The zone of privacy is not limited to the victim’s own home.
Complainant had lived in the home for about two months and had only moved out a couple weeks earlier. She was staying in the same bedroom as O’Brien’s sister, a friend of hers for over six years. The O’Brien home was obviously considered a safe and secure place for complainant although understandably she may no longer regard that home as “the island of security that she perhaps thought it was.” State v. Van Gorden, 326 N.W.2d 633, 635 (Minn. 1982).
The trial court also referred to O’Brien’s prior conviction for assault in the third degree, in which a person was injured. Under Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines II.D. 2.b.(3), this is an aggravating factor which may be used by the trial court in departing from the sentence. Although this factor alone may not support a doubling of the presumptive sentence, it does warrant a departure. See State v. Lindsey, 314 N.W.2d 823 (Minn.1982).
This court may have acted otherwise had it been sitting as a sentencing court. As a reviewing court, however, we are loath to interfere in the absence of an abuse of the discretion granted in departing * * * from the guidelines.
State v. Case, 350 N.W.2d 473, 476 (Minn.Ct.App.1984). We should be wary of substituting our own view of the facts for that of the trial court in upward departures. See State v. Winchell, 363 N.W.2d 747 (Minn., March 1, 1985) (reversing our deter*907mination that durational departure was not justified by substantial and compelling circumstances). Since the trial court was experienced and thoroughly familiar with the sentencing guidelines, his determination that the circumstances justified a departure should not be disturbed.