State v. Martin, A18-0893

• Decision Date: 01 April 2020
• Docket Number: A18-0893
• Citation: 941 N.W.2d 119
• Parties: STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Edward MARTIN, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

941 N.W.2d 119

STATE of Minnesota, Respondent,

v.Edward MARTIN, Appellant.

A18-0893

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Filed: April 1, 2020

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota; and Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Patrick R. Lofton, Assistant County Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for respondent.

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Richard Schmitz, Assistant State Public Defender, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for appellant.

OPINION

THISSEN, Justice.

This appeal requires us to determine whether appellant Edward Martin is required to register as a predatory offender in Minnesota because of a conviction in a different state. While incarcerated in Minnesota, Martin was informed by prison officials that he was required to register as a predatory offender because of his 1992 California conviction for sexual battery. Although Martin contested the registration requirement, he intermittently registered for several years. Martin did not register in the fall of 2016. Respondent State of Minnesota charged him with failing to register as a predatory offender. The district court found Martin guilty and the court of appeals affirmed his conviction. Because we conclude that Martin’s 1992 California conviction does not require him to register as a predatory offender under Minn. Stat. § 234.166, subd. 1b(b) (2012), we reverse.

FACTS

In 1992, Martin was convicted in California for sexual battery under Cal. Penal Code § 243.4(a) (Deering 1991) and sentenced to 4 years in prison. At the time of his conviction, Martin was not required to register as a predatory offender in California. In 1994, California changed its law to require predatory offender registration for individuals convicted of sexual battery who resided in California. See Cal. Penal Code § 290(a) (Deering 1995). The registration law applied retroactively to all sexual battery convictions that occurred after 1944. Cal. Penal Code § 290(a)(2)(A) (Deering 1995). The record does not disclose when Martin left California or whether Martin registered as a predatory offender in California after this law was passed.

Martin moved to Minnesota in 2000. While Martin was incarcerated in a Minnesota prison in 2005, prison officials presented him with a registration form which stated that he was required to register as a predatory offender in Minnesota because of his 1992 California conviction. Martin refused to sign the form. He later asserted that he was not required to register in Minnesota. From 2005 to 2016, Martin received multiple letters from the BCA stating that he was required to register as a predatory offender for life. Martin registered intermittently, and at least once crossed out portions of the form indicating that he "understood" that he was required to register.

After being released from prison in 2007, Martin experienced intermittent homelessness. Because he was homeless in August 2016, Martin was instructed to check in at the local police station on a weekly basis to comply with Minnesota’s registration requirements. He did not do so. On September 28, 2016, the BCA identified Martin as noncompliant with the registration requirements. The State charged him with failing to register as a predatory offender in violation of Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 5(a) (2018).¹

Martin moved to dismiss the charge for lack of probable cause asserting that he was not required to register in Minnesota. The State did not respond to the motion and the district court denied it.

Martin then waived his right to a jury trial and the parties agreed to a bench trial based on three stipulated exhibits: Martin’s California conviction records, his Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension registration file, and police reports. The district court found Martin guilty, citing Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 6(d)(1) (2018), and imposed a stayed sentence of 12 months and 1 day. The provision cited by the district court did not apply to Martin because it requires lifetime registration for persons who have been convicted of two offenses requiring registration. No record evidence shows that Martin had a prior conviction for an offense requiring registration before his 1992 California criminal sexual battery conviction.

Martin appealed asserting that the State had failed to prove an element of the offense—that he was required to register as a predatory offender. The court of appeals determined that the district court erred by relying on Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 6(d)(1), because Martin did not have two convictions requiring registration. State v. Martin , No. A18-0893, 2019 WL 2079795, at *3 (Minn. App. May 13, 2019). But the court of appeals adopted an alternative theory for registration proffered by the State. The court held that Martin was required to register under Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 6(d)(3) (2018), which requires lifetime registration for persons convicted under other states’ statutes that are "similar to" any one of several Minnesota criminal sexual conduct statutes. Martin , 2019 WL 2079795, at *3. These include Minn. Stat. § 609.345, subd. 1(c) (2018), which defines fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct based on force or coercion. The court of appeals concluded that California’s criminal sexual battery statute "is sufficiently similar to Minnesota’s fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct statute to trigger lifetime registration." Martin , 2019 WL 2079795 at *3.

We granted Martin’s petition for review.

ANALYSIS

To convict Martin for failing to register as a predatory offender, the State must prove that (1) Martin is a person who is required to register as a sex offender under Minnesota law and (2) Martin knowingly failed to register. See Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 5(a). There is no question that Martin knowingly failed to register. The sole issue is whether Minnesota’s predatory offender registration statute requires Martin to register because of his 1992 conviction.² "When a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim turns on the meaning of the statute under which a defendant has been convicted, we are presented with a question of statutory interpretation that we review de novo." State v. Henderson , 907 N.W.2d 623, 625 (Minn. 2018).

The State’s conduct in this case is troubling. In the complaint, the State did not cite any specific statutory provision that required Martin to register. The State also failed to respond to Martin’s motion to dismiss and, in the absence of guidance, the district court relied on a factually inapplicable provision.³ Before the court of appeals, the State agreed that the district court’s legal analysis was erroneous, but then posited that Martin was required to register under a different provision. The State now acknowledges that the provision it cited to the court of appeals is also inapplicable to Martin because it only applies to people who commit offenses requiring lifetime registration on or after August 1, 2000. Act of Apr. 3, 2000, ch. 311, art. 2, §§ 7, 16, 2000 Minn. Laws 189, 194–95, 206. Martin was convicted of sexual battery in California in 1992.

On appeal to us, the State relies on yet another provision of the registration statute to support its position that Martin was required to register because of his 1992 California conviction. The State currently argues that Martin is required to register under Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 6(e) (2018), which states:

A person described in subdivision 1b, paragraph (b), who is required to register under the laws of a state in which the person has been previously convicted ... shall register under this section for the time period required by the state of conviction ... unless a longer time period is required elsewhere in this section.

This provision became effective June 1, 2006, and applies to all offenders living in Minnesota on or after June 2, 2006. See Act of June 1, 2006, ch. 260, art. 3, § 10, 2006 Minn. Laws 707, 751. Martin was living in Minnesota at the time he failed to register in 2016.

To prevail on its argument, the State must first prove that Martin is a "person described in subdivision 1b, paragraph (b)" as required under Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 6(e). The relevant portion of subdivision 1b(b) requires a person to register as a predatory offender when, among other things, "the person was convicted ... in another state for an offense that would be a violation of a law described in paragraph (a) if committed in this state. " Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 1b(b)(1) (2012) (emphasis added).⁴ The offenses listed in paragraph (a) include criminal sexual conduct under Minn. Stat. § 609.345 (2018) (fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct using force or coercion). See Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 1b(a)(1)(iii) (2018).⁵ The State contends that Martin’s 1992 California conviction for criminal sexual battery would be fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct using force or coercion if committed in Minnesota. It is to that question that we now turn.

We have not previously addressed how to determine whether an out-of-state conviction qualifies as a violation of Minnesota law under Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 1b(b)(1) (2012). We have addressed similar language in other contexts. For instance, in Anderson v. State, Department of Public Safety & Department of Transportation , we considered whether the Commissioner of Public Safety had properly revoked a driver’s license after "receiving a record of the driver’s conviction of ‘an offense in another state which, if committed in this state, would be grounds for the revocation of the driver’s license.’ " 305 N.W.2d 786, 787 (Minn. 1981) (quoting Minn. Stat. § 171.17(7) (1980) ). The Commissioner revoked the driver’s license because he had been convicted of " ‘driving while ability impaired’ " in Colorado. Id. at 787.

We looked at the elements of the Colorado offense and compared them with the elements of Minnesota’s driving-under-the-influence offense, which would be grounds for revocation of a driver’s license. Id. We held that the Commissioner...