Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Gamez

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided December 29, 1992No. C0-92-845Published

1DissentDavies, Judge

I respectfully dissent.

We have here an incident of non-consensual intercourse. The complainant had a right to say “no” and her protestations should have been respected by appellant.

But criminal sexual conduct in the third degree is not defined simply as sexual intercourse without consent. It involves more; as charged in this case it involves penetration “caused by force or coercion.” Because that is not what happened, the conduct of the appellant does not fulfill the elements of third degree sexual conduct.

Both “force” and “coercion” are defined in the statute. The state, conceding that…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State v. CorbinCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984
  2. United States v. GideonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1856
  3. State v. SmallSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1882
  4. Theodore Wisniewski v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1957
  5. State v. MeechCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API