State v. Decker
916 N.W.2d 385 (2018)
Rule of Law:
The statutory requirement that a lewd exhibition of genitals occur 'in the presence of a minor' is satisfied when an individual sends an image of their genitals to a minor via simultaneous or near-simultaneous electronic communication, even if the parties are not in the same physical location.
Facts:
- In the summer of 2014, Daniel Decker, age 34, became friends on Facebook with M.J., a 14-year-old.
- Decker was aware of M.J.'s age.
- On September 8, 2014, shortly after midnight, Decker sent M.J. a video of his face via Facebook Messenger, initiating a conversation.
- Decker and M.J. exchanged messages for approximately four minutes.
- Decker then told M.J. he was going to finish his nightly 'ritual to de-stress,' which he described as 'embarrassing kinda.'
- One minute later, Decker sent M.J. a picture of his erect penis.
- At the time of the communication, Decker and M.J. were in separate physical locations.
Procedural Posture:
- Daniel Decker was charged with fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct and indecent exposure in a Minnesota state trial court.
- Following a trial, a jury found Decker guilty on both counts.
- Decker, as the appellant, appealed his convictions to the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed both convictions, holding that the statutory term 'present' encompasses online activity with a minor.
- The Minnesota Supreme Court granted Decker's petition for review.
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 an adult who sends a picture of their genitals to a minor via near-simultaneous electronic messaging, while in a different physical location, commit the offenses of fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct and indecent exposure which require the act to occur 'in the presence of a minor'?
Opinions:
Majority - McKeig, J.
Yes. An adult who sends a picture of their genitals to a minor via near-simultaneous electronic messaging commits the offenses of fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct and indecent exposure because such conduct occurs 'in the presence of a minor.' The term 'presence' in these statutes is ambiguous and must be interpreted in light of the legislative intent, which is to protect minors from lewd exposure. To interpret 'presence' as requiring physical co-location would create a significant loophole, allowing adults to expose themselves to minors via the internet without consequence. By engaging in a live, direct conversation, Decker used technology to 'effectively enter M.J.'s private room.' Furthermore, the statutes' prohibition on exhibiting or exposing genitals is not limited to the physical body but also includes a photographic likeness.
Dissenting - Anderson, J.
No. An adult who sends a picture of their genitals to a minor from a different physical location does not commit an offense requiring the act to occur 'in the presence of a minor.' The plain and common meaning of 'presence' requires a shared physical location. The majority's reliance on State v. Stevenson for ambiguity is misplaced because ambiguity must be determined based on the specific facts of a case, and Stevenson involved parties in the same physical location. A narrow interpretation of 'presence' does not create a legal vacuum, as other statutes criminalizing sexually explicit electronic communications or obscenity could be used to prosecute such conduct. An act does not occur 'in the presence' of someone merely because they are sent a photograph of it.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the interpretation of 'presence' in criminal law to encompass virtual or electronic presence, adapting long-standing statutes to the realities of the digital age. By rejecting a strict physical proximity requirement, the court prevents technology from creating a loophole in laws designed to protect minors from sexual exploitation. This creates a powerful precedent for prosecuting online indecent exposure and similar crimes, but also raises questions about the temporal limits of 'simultaneous communication' that future cases may need to clarify.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: State v. Decker (2018)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"