Minnesota -- Age of Consent
[Cool Teen Sites]
609.345 Criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree.
Subdivision 1. Crime defined. A person who engages in sexual contact with another person is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree if any of the following circumstances exists:
(a) the complainant is under 13 years of age and the actor is no more than 36 months older than the complainant. Neither mistake as to the complainant's age or consent to the act by the complainant is a defense. In a prosecution under this clause, the state is not required to prove that the sexual contact was coerced;
(b) the complainant is at least 13 but less than 16 years of age and the actor is more than 48 months older than the complainant or in a position of authority over the complainant and uses this authority to cause the complainant to submit. Consent by the complainant to the act is not a defense. In any such case, it shall be an affirmative defense which must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the actor believes the complainant to be 16 years of age or older;
(c) the actor uses force or coercion to accomplish the sexual contact;
(d) the actor knows or has reason to know that the complainant is mentally impaired, mentally incapacitated, or physically helpless;
(e) the complainant is at least 16 but less than 18 years of age and the actor is more than 48 months older than the complainant and in a position of authority over the complainant, and uses this authority to cause or induce the complainant to submit. Neither mistake as to the complainant's age nor consent to the act by the complainant is a defense;
(f) the actor has a significant relationship to the complainant and the complainant was at least 16 but under 18 years of age at the time of the sexual contact. Neither mistake as to the complainant's age nor consent to the act by the complainant is a defense;
(g) the actor has a significant relationship to the complainant, the complainant was at least 16 but under 18 years of age at the time of the sexual contact, and:
(i) the actor or an accomplice used force or coercion to accomplish the contact;
(ii) the complainant suffered personal injury; or
(iii) the sexual abuse involved multiple acts committed over an extended period of time.
Neither mistake as to the complainant's age nor consent to the act by the complainant is a defense;
(h) the actor is a psychotherapist and the complainant is a patient of the psychotherapist and the sexual contact occurred:
(i) during the psychotherapy session; or
(ii) outside the psychotherapy session if an ongoing psychotherapist-patient relationship exists.
Consent by the complainant is not a defense;
(i) the actor is a psychotherapist and the complainant is a former patient of the psychotherapist and the former patient is emotionally dependent upon the psychotherapist;
(j) the actor is a psychotherapist and the complainant is a patient or former patient and the sexual contact occurred by means of therapeutic deception. Consent by the complainant is not a defense;
(k) the actor accomplishes the sexual contact by means of deception or false representation that the contact is for a bona fide medical purpose. Consent by the complainant is not a defense; or
(1) the actor is or purports to be a member of the clergy, the complainant is not married to the actor, and:
(i) the sexual contact occurred during the course of a meeting in which the complainant sought or received religious or spiritual advice, aid, or comfort from the actor in private; or
(ii) the sexual contact occurred during a period of time in which the complainant was meeting on an ongoing basis with the actor to seek or receive religious or spiritual advice, aid, or comfort in private.
Consent by the complainant is not a defense.
Subd. 2. Penalty. A person convicted under subdivision 1 may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to a payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both.
Subd. 3. Stay. Except when imprisonment is required under section 609.346, if a person is convicted under subdivision 1, clause (f), the court may stay imposition or execution of the sentence if it finds that:
(a) a stay is in the best interest of the complainant or the family unit; and
(b) a professional assessment indicates that the offender has been accepted by and can respond to a treatment program.
If the court stays imposition or execution of sentence, it shall include the following as conditions of probation:
(1) incarceration in a local jail or workhouse;
(2) a requirement that the offender complete a treatment program; and
(3) a requirement that the offender have no unsupervised contact with the complainant until the offender has successfully completed the treatment program.
HIST: 1975 c 374 s 6; 1976 c 124 s 9; 1979 c 258 s 14; 1981 c 51 s 4; 1983 c 204 s 4; 1984 c 588 s 8; 1984 c 628 art 3 s 11; 1985 c 24 s 8; 1985 c 286 s 18; 1985 c 297 s 7; 1986 c 351 s 9; 1986 c 444; 1Sp1986 c 3 art 1 s 81; 1987 c 94 s 2; 1989 c 290 art 4 s 15; 1992 c 571 art 1 s 18,19; 1993 c 326 art 4 s 21; 1994 c 636 art 2 s 36
1997 the Office of Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota.
Date Thu, 24 Feb 2000 130446 -0600
The first (609.293) is Minnesota's sodomy law which forbids oral and anal intercourse, regardless of circumstances.
The second (609.34) is the fornication law which prohibits sex between non-married people. Basically, the fornication law is not enforced (if it were there would be no need for an age of consent law). Both of these laws, along with some other outdated laws (including the definition and trafic laws for Trackless Trolley Cars in the transportation statutes) are up for repeal in a bill (S.F. No. 1537 - Repealing Various Statutory Provisions) that is going through the state legislature now. Here are the two statutes of interest
Chapter Title CRIMINAL CODE Section 609.293 Text
Subdivision 1. Definition. "Sodomy" means carnally knowing any person by the
anus or by or with the mouth. Subd. 2. Repealed, 1977 c 130 s 10
Chapter Title CRIMINAL CODE Section 609.34 Text
When any man and single woman have sexual intercourse with each other, each is guilty of fornication, which is a misdemeanor. HIST 1967 c 507 s 11; 1971 c 23 s 43
Special Note When WCCO radio (830 AM) decided to start "Lunch with the Governor" in the summer of 1999, the last call of the first show was from a man asking Gov. Ventura to repeal the sodomy law because "he enjoyed oral sex from his wife" and was tired of having to break the law.
RECEIVED BY EMAIL
The two bills promoted by "Repeal all Silly and Senseless Laws" (RSSL) in '99 that would have gotten rid of the sodomy and fornifaction laws in Minnesota did not pass and as far as I can tel got lost some where. The RSSL web site has not been updated since 1999. A study paid for the the minnesota state legislative on criminal law reccommended getting rid of the state sodomy law, but this study has been buried.
The Minnesota Civil Liberties Union has recently been in the early stages of challenging the sodomy law at the state Supreme Court level. The following is a report from their web site
"C-9822 Sodomy Challenge (Direct)
"This case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of the Minnesota law criminalizing consensual sodomy as a violation of the right to privacy. Kevin Devescovi faced prosecution for engaging in private, consensual, noncommercial, heterosexual sodomy. This was the first such prosecution that the MCLU has been able to find. MCLU Volunteer Attorney Margaret Dow attempted to bring a motion to dismiss the charges, however, before a motion could be heard, Devescovi plead to a lesser charge. The MCLU plans to bring a civil action to seek a declaratory judgment that the law is unconstitutional and an injunction prohibiting the law from being enforced in the future. We are looking for additional plaintiffs from the Gay and Lesbian community as well as individuals whose disabilities prevent them from engaging in sexual conduct that does not violate the Sodomy law."
"Status Seeking additional Plaintiffs"
Significant Relationship: A situation in which
the actor is:
Update 06-23-01: This is all we know .. no confirmation:
07-2000 New Source: U.S. statutory rape laws is published on the Web by the National
NOTE FROM THE EDITOR: Copyright holders: We are not trying to assert any rights to your article. We operate as a repository with a virtually unlimited storage capacity. We capture and store articles to prevent loss due to system crashes and the space limitations that most sites operate under. We will remove your article if you wish. This is a non-profit site. AgeOfConsent.com is a repository of both legal and commentary information on laws relating to sexual activity. We do not, and can not offer any legal advice or provide any legal counsel. Do not write to us requesting our advice or suggestions -- your email will be ignored. This web site and its contents are in no way affiliated, funded, or regulated by any Local, State, Federal or International government agency or governing body. Information contained on this site has been provided by readers and/or has been discovered through the research of volunteers. Other than cursory review, no efforts have been made to independently verify the current status of the legal statutes contained in these page nor whether any cases used as examples are still precedent. Do not rely on this information to make legal decisions. You should contact a legal advisor in your area for a proper determination of law on any questions you might have. Any emails and other user comments and opinions included on this site are the opinions of the creator of the message and are not necessarily those of this site, its editors, advertisers or other affiliated entities.