State v. Thompson

995 N.W.2d 415

STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Joseph Ryan THOMPSON, Appellant.

A22-1669

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

Filed August 21, 2023

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Brian J. Melton, Clay County Attorney, Pamela L. Foss, Assistant County Attorney, Moorhead, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Suzanne M. Senecal-Hill, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Larkin, Presiding Judge; Wheelock, Judge; and Kirk, Judge. ^*

LARKIN, Judge

Appellant challenges his conviction of second-degree criminal sexual conduct, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the offense under Minn. Stat. § 260B.193, subd. 5(d), because it occurred before his 14th birthday and he was not charged until after his 21st birthday. Appellant also raises various issues in a pro se supplemental brief. We conclude that even though the relevant statutory language is plain, applying the statute without regard to the offender's age at the time of the offense causes an absurd and unreasonable result that is inconsistent with clear legislative intent to limit district court criminal jurisdiction to offenses committed by offenders after the age of 14. We therefore hold that the statute applies only to offenses committed by an offender who was age 14 or older at the time of the offense. Because the underlying offense occurred before appellant's 14th birthday, the district court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the offense. We therefore reverse appellant's conviction.

FACTS

Respondent State of Minnesota charged appellant Joseph Ryan Thompson, born July 9, 2000, with second-degree criminal sexual conduct under Minn. Stat. § 609.343, subd. 1a(e) (2012). At the time of charging, Thompson was 21 years old. It is undisputed that the charged offense occurred sometime between January 2013 and July 2014, when Thompson was either 12 or 13 years old and the victim, MEJ, was either five or six years old.

Thompson moved the district court to dismiss the charge, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction because the charged offense occurred before his 14th birthday. The district court denied Thompson's motion. Thompson and the state agreed to a stipulated-evidence trial before the district court to preserve the jurisdictional issue for appeal, and the district court found him guilty as charged.

The district court's posttrial findings of fact indicate that in October 2020, Clay County Social Services received a report that Thompson had touched MEJ's vagina when she was at a daycare operated by Thompson's mother. Social services reported the allegation to law enforcement the same day. The next day, a detective contacted MEJ's mother, who said that MEJ first disclosed the abuse shortly after the daycare ceased operations in 2014, but that she decided not to report it at that time. The detective scheduled a forensic interview of MEJ, to occur three days later. On the day of the scheduled interview, MEJ's mother called the detective and cancelled the interview because MEJ did not want to provide a statement.

In June 2021, MEJ's mother contacted the detective and informed him that MEJ was willing to be interviewed. The interview occurred nine days later. MEJ reported that the daycare provider's youngest son touched her vagina multiple times while she was at the daycare and that he had her touch his penis one time. The police determined that Thompson is the daycare provider's youngest son.

On July 28, 2021, the detective interviewed Thompson regarding MEJ's allegation. During that interview, Thompson admitted that he had touched MEJ's vagina and buttocks over her clothing, kissed her on the mouth, and had her touch his penis over his clothing. He said that the conduct occurred in the office at his mother's daycare when he was 12 or 13 years old.

After finding Thompson guilty of the charged offense, the district court entered judgement of conviction and sentenced Thompson to serve 60 months in prison.

Thompson appeals, arguing that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the offense occurred before his 14th birthday. ¹

ISSUE

Did the district court err by concluding that it had subject-matter jurisdiction over the criminal case in which the state alleged that Thompson had engaged in criminal sexual conduct before his 14th birthday?

ANALYSIS

In this case, we must decide whether the district court has subject-matter jurisdiction over a criminal proceeding in which an adult is alleged to have committed a felony-level offense before the adult's 14th birthday. Subject-matter jurisdiction refers to a court's authority to hear the type of dispute at issue and to grant the type of relief sought. Williams v. Smith , 820 N.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Minn. 2012). "Put differently, subject matter jurisdiction is a court's statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case." Giersdorf v. A & M Constr., Inc. , 820 N.W.2d 16, 20 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted). Whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists is a question of law that we review de novo. Federated Retail Holdings, Inc. v. County of Ramsey , 820 N.W.2d 553, 558 (Minn. 2012).

Overview of Jurisdictional Authority

The district court has original jurisdiction in all civil and criminal cases. Minn. Const. art. VI, § 3. However, Minn. Stat. §§ 260B.001 -.446 (2022) carve out "a narrow category of cases from the subject matter jurisdiction of district courts and vest[ ] that jurisdiction exclusively in the juvenile court." ² State v. Vang , 847 N.W.2d 248, 258 (Minn. 2014). "Except as provided in sections 260B.125 [(governing certification)] and 260B.225 [(governing traffic offenses)], the juvenile court has original and exclusive jurisdiction in proceedings concerning any child who is alleged to be delinquent." Minn. Stat. §§ 260B.101, subd. 1 ; .125; .225. " ‘Child’ means an individual under 18 years of age." Minn. Stat. § 260B.007, subd. 3. "Delinquent child" means, subject to several exceptions not relevant here, "a child ... who has violated any state or local law." Id. , subd. 6(a).

The delinquency provisions of the Juvenile Court Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 260B.001 -.446, do not establish a minimum age at which a child may be petitioned to court as a delinquent child. However, the juvenile-protection provisions of the Juvenile Court Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 260C.001 -.83 (2022), state that a child who has committed a delinquent act before becoming ten years old is "a child in need of protection or services." Minn. Stat. § 260C.007, subd. 6(12). Thus, "[a] child under ten years of age cannot be a ‘delinquent child’ under the Juvenile Court Act." See In re Welfare of Child. of T.T.B. , 529 N.W.2d 517, 517 (Minn. App. 1995) (applying prior version of the Juvenile Court Act and rejecting state's argument that the juvenile court's jurisdiction over a delinquent child is not subject to any minimum age requirement).

Unless terminated by the juvenile court and under certain circumstances discussed below, "the jurisdiction of the [juvenile] court shall continue until the individual becomes 19 years of age if the court determines it is in the best interest of the individual to do so." Minn. Stat. § 260B.193, subd. (5)(a).

However, if an offender is convicted as an extended jurisdiction juvenile (EJJ), the juvenile court's jurisdiction may extend until the offender becomes 21 years of age. Id. , subd. 5(b). The juvenile court may designate a proceeding involving a child alleged to have committed a felony offense an EJJ prosecution, but the court may do so only if the child was " 14 to 17 years old at the time of the alleged offense." Minn. Stat. § 260B.130, subd. 1(1), (3) (emphasis added). If an EJJ prosecution results in a finding of guilt, the court "shall" impose both a juvenile disposition and a stayed adult criminal sentence. Id. , subd. 4; see Minn. Stat. § 609.10, subd. 1(a), (2) (2022) ("Upon conviction of a felony and compliance with the other provisions of this chapter the court, if it imposes sentence, may sentence the defendant to the extent authorized by law ... to imprisonment for a fixed term of years set by the court.").

The juvenile court may also certify a proceeding involving a child alleged to have committed an offense "for action under the laws and court procedures controlling adult criminal violations." Minn. Stat. § 260B.125, subd. 1. But the court may do so only if "a child is alleged to have committed, after becoming 14 years of age , an offense that would be a felony if committed by an adult." Id. (emphasis added). If the juvenile court certifies an alleged violation, "the prosecuting authority shall proceed with the case as if the jurisdiction of the juvenile court had never attached." Id. , subd. 7.

In addition, the juvenile court has jurisdiction to certify a proceeding, or to designate a proceeding an EJJ prosecution, conduct a trial, receive a plea, and impose an EJJ disposition, if "an adult is alleged to have committed an offense before the adult's 18th birthday" and "a [delinquency] petition is filed [within the applicable statute of limitations] and before the adult's 21st birthday." Minn. Stat. § 260B.193, subd. 5(c). But such jurisdiction is for the limited purpose of conducting a certification hearing or an EJJ designation and prosecution, and those proceedings are not authorized unless the offender committed the underlying offense after becoming 14 years of age. Id. ; see Minn. Stat. §§ 260B.125, subd. 1 (authorizing certification of a proceeding "for action under the laws and court procedures controlling adult criminal violations" if a child is alleged to have committed an offense "after becoming 14 years of age"); .130, subds. 1(1), (3), 4 (authorizing an EJJ prosecution and imposition of a stayed adult criminal sentence only if "the child was 14 to 17 years old at the time of the alleged offense").

The...