State v. Cox

ANDERSON, PAUL H., Justice

(dissenting).

I respectfully dissent. I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the sentencing disparity between Minn.Stat. § 609.535, subd. 2a(a)(l) (2010), and Minn. Stat. § 609.52, subd. 3(4) (2010), is constitutional as applied to the appellant, Diane Marie Cox. Laws that purport to address social goals that the Legislature believes to be important must have a rational basis, or else the Legislature runs the risk of having the law overturned because equal protection rights are violated. Here, I conclude that Minnesota’s statutory scheme for punishing the…