CSC 3&4 in Secure Treatment Facilities

CSC 3&4 in Secure Treatment Facilities

Effective August 1, 2010, and applies to crimes committed on or after that date.

Creates the crime of criminal sexual conduct in the third and fourth degree for sexual contact in secure treatment facilities.

Please remember that the interpretation and analysis presented here is not intended to be legal advice.  If you are seeking legal advice please contact us for a free consultation and actual examination the issues that your case may present.


Thank you,
Landon J. Ascheman, Esq.
(B) 612.217.0077 (C) 651.280.9533 (F) 651.344.0700
Contact Me LinkedinFacebookBlog RSSTwitterGoogleGoogleGoogle
P.S. Have an attorney in your phone? Add us now 612-217-0077 - While we hope you never need us, we're here if you do.

CHAPTER 270--S.F.No. 2717
An actrelating to human services; including sexual contact in secure treatment
facilities as criminal sexual conduct in the third and fourth degrees;amending
Minnesota Statutes 2008, sections 609.341, by adding a subdivision; 609.344,
subdivision 1; 609.345, subdivision 1.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:

Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 609.341, is amended by adding a
subdivision to read:
Subd. 23. Secure treatment facility. "Secure treatment facility" has the meaning
given in section 253B.02, subdivision 18a.
EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective August 1, 2010, and applies to crimes
committed on or after that date.

Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 609.344, subdivision 1, is amended to read:
Subdivision 1. Crime defined. A person who engages in sexual penetration with
another person is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the third degree if any of the
following circumstances exists:
(a) the complainant is under 13 years of age and the actor is no more than 36 months
older than the complainant. Neither mistake as to the complainant's age nor consent to the
act by the complainant shall be a defense;
(b) the complainant is at least 13 but less than 16 years of age and the actor is more
than 24 months older than the complainant. In any such case if the actor is no more
than 120 months older than the complainant, it shall be an affirmative defense, which
must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence, that the actor reasonably believes
the complainant to be 16 years of age or older. In all other cases, mistake as to the
complainant's age shall not be a defense. If the actor in such a case is no more than 48
months but more than 24 months older than the complainant, the actor may be sentenced
to imprisonment for not more than five years. Consent by the complainant is not a defense;
(c) the actor uses force or coercion to accomplish the penetration;
(d) the actor knows or has reason to know that the complainant is mentally impaired,
mentally incapacitated, or physically helpless;
(e) the complainant is at least 16 but less than 18 years of age and the actor is
more than 48 months older than the complainant and in a position of authority over the
complainant. Neither mistake as to the complainant's age nor consent to the act by the
complainant is a defense;
(f) the actor has a significant relationship to the complainant and the complainant
was at least 16 but under 18 years of age at the time of the sexual penetration. Neither
mistake as to the complainant's age nor consent to the act by the complainant is a defense;
(g) the actor has a significant relationship to the complainant, the complainant was at
least 16 but under 18 years of age at the time of the sexual penetration, and:
(i) the actor or an accomplice used force or coercion to accomplish the penetration;
(ii) the complainant suffered personal injury; or
(iii) the sexual abuse involved multiple acts committed over an extended period of
time.
Neither mistake as to the complainant's age nor consent to the act by the complainant
is a defense;
(h) the actor is a psychotherapist and the complainant is a patient of the
psychotherapist and the sexual penetration occurred:
(i) during the psychotherapy session; or
(ii) outside the psychotherapy session if an ongoing psychotherapist-patient
relationship exists.
Consent by the complainant is not a defense;
(i) the actor is a psychotherapist and the complainant is a former patient of the
psychotherapist and the former patient is emotionally dependent upon the psychotherapist;
(j) the actor is a psychotherapist and the complainant is a patient or former patient
and the sexual penetration occurred by means of therapeutic deception. Consent by the
complainant is not a defense;
(k) the actor accomplishes the sexual penetration by means of deception or false
representation that the penetration is for a bona fide medical purpose. Consent by the
complainant is not a defense;
(1) the actor is or purports to be a member of the clergy, the complainant is not
married to the actor, and:
(i) the sexual penetration occurred during the course of a meeting in which the
complainant sought or received religious or spiritual advice, aid, or comfort from the
actor in private; or
(ii) the sexual penetration occurred during a period of time in which the complainant
was meeting on an ongoing basis with the actor to seek or receive religious or spiritual
advice, aid, or comfort in private. Consent by the complainant is not a defense;
(m) the actor is an employee, independent contractor, or volunteer of a state, county,
city, or privately operated adult or juvenile correctional system, or secure treatment
facility, or treatment facility providing services to clients civilly committed as mentally
ill and dangerous, sexually dangerous persons, or sexual psychopathic personalties,
including, but not limited to, jails, prisons, detention centers, or work release facilities, and
the complainant is a resident of a facility or under supervision of the correctional system.
Consent by the complainant is not a defense;
(n) the actor provides or is an agent of an entity that provides special transportation
service, the complainant used the special transportation service, and the sexual penetration
occurred during or immediately before or after the actor transported the complainant.
Consent by the complainant is not a defense; or
(o) the actor performs massage or other bodywork for hire, the complainant was a
user of one of those services, and nonconsensual sexual penetration occurred during or
immediately before or after the actor performed or was hired to perform one of those
services for the complainant.
EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective August 1, 2010, and applies to crimes
committed on or after that date.

Sec. 3. Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 609.345, subdivision 1, is amended to read:
Subdivision 1. Crime defined. A person who engages in sexual contact with
another person is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree if any of the
following circumstances exists:
(a) the complainant is under 13 years of age and the actor is no more than 36 months
older than the complainant. Neither mistake as to the complainant's age or consent to the
act by the complainant is a defense. In a prosecution under this clause, the state is not
required to prove that the sexual contact was coerced;
(b) the complainant is at least 13 but less than 16 years of age and the actor is
more than 48 months older than the complainant or in a position of authority over
the complainant. Consent by the complainant to the act is not a defense. In any such
case, if the actor is no more than 120 months older than the complainant, it shall be an
affirmative defense which must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the
actor reasonably believes the complainant to be 16 years of age or older. In all other cases,
mistake as to the complainant's age shall not be a defense;
(c) the actor uses force or coercion to accomplish the sexual contact;
(d) the actor knows or has reason to know that the complainant is mentally impaired,
mentally incapacitated, or physically helpless;
(e) the complainant is at least 16 but less than 18 years of age and the actor is
more than 48 months older than the complainant and in a position of authority over the
complainant. Neither mistake as to the complainant's age nor consent to the act by the
complainant is a defense;
(f) the actor has a significant relationship to the complainant and the complainant
was at least 16 but under 18 years of age at the time of the sexual contact. Neither mistake
as to the complainant's age nor consent to the act by the complainant is a defense;
(g) the actor has a significant relationship to the complainant, the complainant was at
least 16 but under 18 years of age at the time of the sexual contact, and:
(i) the actor or an accomplice used force or coercion to accomplish the contact;
(ii) the complainant suffered personal injury; or
(iii) the sexual abuse involved multiple acts committed over an extended period of
time.
Neither mistake as to the complainant's age nor consent to the act by the complainant
is a defense;
(h) the actor is a psychotherapist and the complainant is a patient of the
psychotherapist and the sexual contact occurred:
(i) during the psychotherapy session; or
(ii) outside the psychotherapy session if an ongoing psychotherapist-patient
relationship exists. Consent by the complainant is not a defense;
(i) the actor is a psychotherapist and the complainant is a former patient of the
psychotherapist and the former patient is emotionally dependent upon the psychotherapist;
(j) the actor is a psychotherapist and the complainant is a patient or former patient
and the sexual contact occurred by means of therapeutic deception. Consent by the
complainant is not a defense;
(k) the actor accomplishes the sexual contact by means of deception or false
representation that the contact is for a bona fide medical purpose. Consent by the
complainant is not a defense;
(1) the actor is or purports to be a member of the clergy, the complainant is not
married to the actor, and:
(i) the sexual contact occurred during the course of a meeting in which the
complainant sought or received religious or spiritual advice, aid, or comfort from the
actor in private; or
(ii) the sexual contact occurred during a period of time in which the complainant
was meeting on an ongoing basis with the actor to seek or receive religious or spiritual
advice, aid, or comfort in private. Consent by the complainant is not a defense;
(m) the actor is an employee, independent contractor, or volunteer of a state, county,
city, or privately operated adult or juvenile correctional system, or secure treatment
facility, or treatment facility providing services to clients civilly committed as mentally
ill and dangerous, sexually dangerous persons, or sexual psychopathic personalities,
including, but not limited to, jails, prisons, detention centers, or work release facilities, and
the complainant is a resident of a facility or under supervision of the correctional system.
Consent by the complainant is not a defense;
(n) the actor provides or is an agent of an entity that provides special transportation
service, the complainant used the special transportation service, the complainant is not
married to the actor, and the sexual contact occurred during or immediately before or after
the actor transported the complainant. Consent by the complainant is not a defense; or
(o) the actor performs massage or other bodywork for hire, the complainant was
a user of one of those services, and nonconsensual sexual contact occurred during or
immediately before or after the actor performed or was hired to perform one of those
services for the complainant.
EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective August 1, 2010, and applies to crimes
committed on or after that date.
Presented to the governor April 19, 2010
Signed by the governor April 22, 2010, 12:27 p.m.



No comments (Add your own)

Add a New Comment


code
 

Comment Guidelines: No HTML is allowed. Off-topic or inappropriate comments will be edited or deleted. Thanks.