Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Gosewisch

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided December 31, 2018No. A18-1142; A18-1143Published

1Dissent

SMITH, Judge (dissenting)

I agree with the majority that Minn. Stat. § 609.349 (2016) is ambiguous, but I would affirm the district court's dismissal of charges because that ambiguity is not resolved through applications of the canons of construction, and a person who is to be charged with a crime should be given advance notice of prohibited conduct.

The section 609.349 provision that excuses the actor's conduct "if the actor and complainant were adults cohabiting in an ongoing voluntary sexual relationship at the time of the alleged offense" includes a past tense verb and a time qualifier,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. ThonesavanhSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2017
  2. State v. CorbinCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984
  3. In re the Guardianship of O'BrienCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2014

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API