State v. Nelson
842 N.W.2d 433, 2014 Minn. LEXIS 59, 2014 WL 551642 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a criminal statute makes it an offense for a person to knowingly omit and fail "to provide care and support," the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant failed to provide both non-monetary care and monetary support. Because the phrase is ambiguous, the rule of lenity requires adopting the interpretation more favorable to the defendant.
Facts:
- Larry Allen Nelson and his ex-wife have two children.
- In 1993, a district court ordered Nelson to pay child support for his minor children.
- Nelson ceased making child support payments sometime in 1997.
- Between April 2007 and April 2008, Nelson was legally obligated to pay $378 per month, which included his current support obligation and payments on his arrears.
- During that specific period, Nelson made only one involuntary payment of $41.10.
- As of April 2008, Nelson had accumulated $83,470.27 in child support arrears.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Minnesota charged Larry Allen Nelson by complaint in district court with felony failure to provide care and support.
- Nelson filed a motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause, arguing the State must allege failure of both care and support, which the district court denied.
- The district court granted the State's motion in limine to prohibit Nelson from presenting evidence of his non-monetary care.
- Nelson waived his right to a jury trial and agreed to a trial on stipulated facts to expedite review of the court's pretrial rulings.
- Following a bench trial, the district court convicted Nelson of the felony charge.
- Nelson, as appellant, appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, which affirmed his conviction.
- The Supreme Court of Minnesota granted Nelson's petition for further 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 Minnesota Statute § 609.375, which criminalizes the knowing omission and failure "to provide care and support" to a child, require the State to prove a defendant failed to provide both non-monetary care and monetary support to secure a conviction?
Opinions:
Majority - Stras, Justice.
Yes. To obtain a conviction under Minn. Stat. § 609.375, the State must prove that a defendant knowingly omitted and failed to provide both care and support. The court determined that "care" refers to nonmonetary obligations like supervision and attentive assistance, while "support" refers to monetary obligations. The statutory phrase "omits and fails to provide care and support" is ambiguous because it could reasonably mean failing to provide either one (the State's view) or failing to provide both (Nelson's view). Because neither interpretation is more persuasive and the statute is criminal in nature, the court applied the rule of lenity, which requires resolving ambiguity in favor of the defendant. Since the State only offered evidence of Nelson's failure to provide monetary support and not non-monetary care, the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction.
Dissenting - Dietzen, Justice
No. The phrase "care and support" is a legal term of art or a doublet that unambiguously refers only to a person's financial obligation to pay support. For over 90 years, Minnesota courts have used "care and support" to mean financial support, giving it a technical meaning that should govern. The majority's reliance on the canon against surplusage is misplaced because "care and support" is a legal doublet, a common lawyerly repetition for emphasis, like "null and void." The majority's interpretation creates an illogical requirement, especially when applied to spousal support, as it would absurdly require proof that an ex-spouse failed to provide "watchful oversight." Proving Nelson knowingly failed to pay his court-ordered child support was sufficient for a conviction.
Dissenting - Lillehaug, Justice
No. The statute unambiguously criminalizes the knowing failure to fulfill a legal obligation, and failure to pay court-ordered support is a clear violation of that obligation. The statute's focus is on the violation of a "legal obligation"; Nelson stipulated that he knowingly failed to pay support, which was part of his legal obligation. This interpretation is supported by other subdivisions of the statute which focus exclusively on monetary support for sentence enhancements and by other related statutes, such as the mandatory notice in support orders which states that failure to pay support is a crime. The majority's alternative reading is unreasonable, creates conflict with other laws, and should not trigger the rule of lenity.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the application of Minnesota's criminal nonsupport statute by imposing a dual-proof requirement on the prosecution. By applying the rule of lenity to an ambiguous phrase, the court made it substantially more difficult for prosecutors to secure convictions based solely on non-payment of child support. This ruling forces the State to also prove a negative—the absence of non-monetary care—which can be a high evidentiary bar. The decision effectively invites the Minnesota Legislature to amend the statute to clarify its intent if it wishes to criminalize the failure to provide either care or support alone.
