State v. Russell
477 N.W.2d 886, 1991 WL 261218, 1991 Minn. LEXIS 301 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Minnesota Constitution's equal protection clause, a statutory classification that has a racially discriminatory impact must be justified by more than anecdotal evidence; the state must demonstrate a genuine and substantial distinction between the classes and a reasonable connection between the actual effect of the classification and the statutory goals.
Facts:
- Minnesota Statute § 152.023, subd. 2, defined possession of three or more grams of crack cocaine as a third-degree offense.
- Under the same statutory scheme, possession of ten or more grams of powder cocaine was required to constitute the same third-degree offense.
- This distinction resulted in a presumptive executed prison sentence of 48 months for possessing three grams of crack, versus a presumptive stayed sentence and probation for possessing the same amount of powder cocaine.
- Five African-American men, the defendants, were charged with violating the statute for possessing crack cocaine.
- Statistical evidence presented showed that in 1988, 96.6% of individuals charged with possession of crack cocaine in Minnesota were Black.
- In contrast, 79.6% of individuals charged with possession of powder cocaine were white.
- The state's primary justifications for the sentencing disparity were targeting 'street-level' drug dealers and the alleged greater dangerousness of crack, both of which were supported primarily by anecdotal testimony from law enforcement.
- Expert testimony indicated that powder cocaine could produce a similar physiological effect to crack if injected, undermining the claim of inherent dangerousness based on the substance itself.
Procedural Posture:
- Five defendants were charged in a Minnesota trial court with possession of crack cocaine in violation of Minn.Stat. § 152.023, subd. 2.
- The defendants jointly moved to dismiss the charges, arguing the statute violated the equal protection clauses of the state and federal constitutions.
- The trial court found that the statute had a discriminatory impact on Black persons and lacked a rational basis, granting the defendants' motion to dismiss.
- The trial court then certified the question of the statute's constitutionality to the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
- The State of Minnesota and the defendants jointly petitioned the Minnesota Supreme Court for accelerated review, which the court granted.
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 152.023, Subd. 2(1), which imposes substantially more severe penalties for the possession of crack cocaine than for the possession of powder cocaine, violate the equal protection clause of the Minnesota Constitution when its application has a severe disparate racial impact?
Opinions:
Majority - Wahl, J.
Yes. Minnesota Statute § 152.023, subd. 2(1) violates the equal protection clause of the Minnesota Constitution. Applying a stricter rational basis test than the federal standard, the court holds that the state failed to provide a genuine and substantial basis for the disparate treatment of crack and powder cocaine. The state’s justifications, such as targeting 'street-level' dealers and the alleged greater danger of crack, were based on purely anecdotal evidence and lacked sufficient factual support. The court refused to hypothesize a rational basis for the law, as the federal standard might allow, instead requiring a reasonable connection between the law's actual effect and its stated goals. Given the statute's severe racially disparate impact, this lack of a substantial, factually-supported distinction renders the classification arbitrary and unconstitutional under the Minnesota Constitution.
Dissenting - Coyne, J.
No. The statute does not violate the equal protection clause of the Minnesota Constitution. The majority engages in judicial activism by substituting its own judgment for that of the legislature, which has the primary authority to define crimes and set punishments. A facially neutral law should not be struck down without proof of discriminatory legislative intent, which is absent here. The legislature had a rational basis for its classification, as there are genuine differences in the chemical composition, marketing, cost, and addictiveness of crack versus powder cocaine. The legislature was entitled to rely on the empirical testimony of law enforcement officials, and the court should not dismiss this evidence as merely 'anecdotal'.
Concurring - Yetka, J.
Yes. The statute violates the state and federal constitutions because it creates an obvious discriminatory effect. The legislature must be presumed to be aware that the law penalizes a suspect class (Blacks) more harshly. When a law deliberately has a harsher impact on a minority group based on minimal information, it cannot survive an equal protection challenge, regardless of the standard applied. The state constitution can and should be used to establish a stricter standard than the federal test in cases where basic rights are at stake. The focus should be on penalizing cocaine use equally, regardless of its form.
Concurring - Simonett, J.
Yes. The statute violates the state constitution's equal protection guarantee. This concurrence proposes a specific framework for state equal protection analysis to avoid reviving substantive due process. Where a facially neutral criminal statute is shown to have a substantial discriminatory racial impact in its general application, the court should apply its three-factor rational basis test with less deference to the legislature, even without a showing of discriminatory intent. Applying this less deferential standard, the state's justifications for the distinctions between crack and powder cocaine are not substantial enough to survive the challenge.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that the rational basis test under the Minnesota Constitution's equal protection clause is more stringent and less deferential than its federal counterpart. The court set a precedent that it will not hypothesize reasons to justify a statute, especially one with a racially disparate impact, but requires the state to prove a 'genuine and substantial' distinction based on concrete facts. This approach allows challenges to facially neutral laws based on their discriminatory effect without requiring the nearly impossible burden of proving discriminatory legislative intent, as required under federal jurisprudence like Washington v. Davis. The ruling significantly strengthens equal protection guarantees for minority groups under Minnesota state law.
