State v. Ortega-Rodriguez
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
THISSEN, Justice.
In this case, we are asked to determine whether Minn. Stat. § 609.342, subd. 1(h) (2018), requires the State to prove that "sexual penetration" occurred. The court of appeals held that the statute does not require such proof. Because we conclude that the plain language of the statute requires proof of "sexual penetration," we reverse the decision of the court of appeals and remand to the district court for further proceedings.
FACTS
The relevant facts are as follows. Starting in September 2015, appellant Juan Manuel Ortega-Rodriguez began sexually abusing 10-year-old G.M. by…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Morton Buildings, Inc. v. Commissioner of RevenueSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1992
- Wegener v. Commissioner of RevenueSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1993
- State v. ColvinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2002
- State of Minnesota v. Thomas Raymond StruzykSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2015
- Allan v. R.D. Offutt Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2015
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Rodriguez v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2019
- John Lee Edmondson v. State of MinnesotaCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2026
- Lowe v. SchnellDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2022