State v. Benniefield
678 N.W.2d 42 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statute that enhances the penalty for possession of a controlled substance within a school zone does not violate equal protection because it is rationally related to the legitimate government interest of protecting children. Furthermore, a conviction under such a statute does not require the state to prove that the defendant knew they were in a school zone or intended to possess the substance in that specific location.
Facts:
- On December 17, 2001, at approximately 11:00 p.m., Steven Allen Benniefield was walking near a street corner in Rochester, Minnesota.
- His location was approximately 61 feet from the property line of the Riverside School.
- Police officer John Fishbauger recognized Benniefield, confirmed an outstanding warrant, and placed him under arrest.
- During a pat-down search, the officer discovered a makeshift crack pipe in Benniefield's pocket.
- After Benniefield was transported in a squad car, officers found a baggie in the car containing 1.10 grams of cocaine.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Minnesota charged Steven Allen Benniefield in district court (trial court) with third-degree possession of a controlled substance in a school zone.
- The district court granted the state's motion in limine to prohibit Benniefield from arguing that intent to be in a school zone was an element of the crime.
- Following a trial, a jury returned a verdict of guilty.
- Benniefield's motion for a new trial was denied by the district court.
- Benniefield, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the Minnesota Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
- Benniefield then appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court (highest court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a Minnesota statute that enhances the penalty for possessing a controlled substance within a school zone, regardless of the time of day or presence of children, violate the equal protection guaranty of the Minnesota Constitution, and does a conviction under it require proof of intent to be in that location?
Opinions:
Majority - Hanson, J.
No. A statute enhancing penalties for drug possession in a school zone does not violate equal protection, and the state is not required to prove the defendant intended to be in the school zone. Applying the rational-basis test, the court found the law is rationally related to the legitimate governmental interest of protecting children. The legislature has a genuine and substantial reason to deter drug activity near schools to prevent children from finding discarded drugs or paraphernalia, even when school is not in session. For the intent element, the court distinguished this case from those involving otherwise legal items. Because possession of cocaine is inherently criminal, the possessor is already on notice of the illegality of their conduct and reasonably assumes the risk of entering a location that carries a more severe penalty.
Analysis:
This decision affirms the constitutionality of school zone sentence enhancements under a rational basis review, establishing that a direct, contemporaneous risk to children is not required for the law to be valid. It solidifies the principle that for crimes involving inherently illegal conduct, the prosecution does not need to prove a separate mens rea (guilty mind) for aggravating factors related to location. This simplifies the prosecution of such offenses by removing the difficult burden of proving a defendant's subjective awareness of their specific location, such as proximity to a school.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Benniefield