Solicitation And Communication Involving Sexual Conduct Statute Found Unconstitutional

The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that felony communication involving sexual conduct with a minor was unconstitutional. Minnesota statute 609.352 governs solicitation of children to engage in sexual conduct and communication of sexually explicit materials to children. Subd. 2a. holds that:

A person 18 years of age or older who uses the Internet, a computer, computer program, computer network, computer system, an electronic communications system, or a telecommunications, wire, or radio communications system, or other electronic device capable of electronic data storage or transmission to commit any of the following acts, with the intent to arouse the sexual desire of any person, is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced as provided in subdivision 4:

(1) soliciting a child or someone the person reasonably believes is a child to engage in sexual conduct;

(2) engaging in communication with a child or someone the person reasonably believes is a child, relating to or describing sexual conduct; or

(3) distributing any material, language, or communication, including a photographic or video image, that relates to or describes sexual conduct to a child or someone the person reasonably believes is a child.

The court of appeals held that subd. 2 (2) was unconstitutional because it was too broad with the potential to ban speech protected by the First Amendment. The case surrounded Krista Muccio who was a lunch lady and 15-year-old student. The child’s father found inappropriate images with naked pictures of women. They exchanged sexual conversations and explicit photographs. She was charged with communication with a minor describing sexual conduct and child pornography. The defense attorney filed a motion to dismiss because the law statute was unconstitutional. The broad language of the statute, which holds that if the adult wishes to “arouse the sexual desire of any person” is guilty of a felony. It does not limit the terminology of “any person” to just “children” when the definition of a child is any person 15 years of younger. The Dakota county attorneys office plans to appeal the decision. Stay tuned to the Keller Criminal Defense Attorneys blog to hear whether the Minnesota Supreme Court will hear the case.

This is a very important decision that may affect many solicitation cases involving minors in Minnesota. If you have been charged with solicitation of children to engage in sexual conduct and communication of sexually explicit materials to children, this ruling may affect your case. Contact a criminal defense attorney t see if the new court of appeals decision applies to your solicitation case and if there are grounds to file a motion to dismiss. If you are facing solicitation charges, you will need a skilled defense attorney on your side. If you have been charged with solicitation contact Keller Criminal Defense Attorneys for a free consultation at 952-913-1421 and visit the firm’s website at www.kellerlawoffies.com

Max Keller has won countless jury trial cases involving misdemeanors and felonies, sex crimes, and DWI’s. He is a member of the Minnesota Society for Criminal Justice, which only allows the top 50 criminal defense attorneys in the state as members. Max is a frequent speaker at CLE’s and is often asked for advice by other defense attorneys across Minnesota.

Years of Experience: Approx. 20 years
Minnesota Registration Status: Active
Bar & Court Admissions: State of Minnesota Minnesota State Court Minnesota Federal Court 8th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals State of Maryland

What to Do If You Have Been Charged with a Criminal Offense

The Surprising Cost of a Guilty Criminal Plea in Minnesota

Defendants in Minnesota may plead guilty or accept deals without understanding the hidden cost of a guilty criminal plea. A guilty criminal plea, regardless of how appealing it appears, can leave you dealing with substantial lifelong consequences. You may skip lengthy trial proceedings and likely get a lenient sentence, but end up with a criminal record. The record can lead to various financial and collateral consequences, including difficulty in securing employment, loss of housing rights, license revocation, and immigration issues.

What You Can Expect at a Pre-Trial Motions Hearing in Minnesota

The pre-trial motions hearing is a court session you attend after your first arraignment. At the hearing, the prosecution and defense appear before a judge to clear several details about the case before trial. These details include pre-trial motions, evidentiary queries, and constitutional matters.

Refusing Arrest vs. Resisting Arrest in Minnesota: What’s the Difference?

Highly publicized incidents of police using excessive force over the past few years have led to people wondering, “What’s the difference between refusing arrest vs. resisting arrest?” Resisting arrest in Minnesota occurs when you use force to prevent a police officer from making a lawful arrest. Refusing an arrest, on the other hand, involves statements or actions that show reluctance to cooperate with an officer’s instructions without using force.