Court Reaffirms Prosecutor’s Broad Charging Discretion

In the Matter of the Welfare of:  B.A.H., Minn.S.Ct., 4/9/2014.  During a sleepover, two cousins, both well under sixteen, having pilfered some liquor, engaged in some sexual “experimentation.”  The state charged B.A.H. with criminal sexual conduct against his cousin.  Part of B.A.H.’s defense to the sex charge was that this fooling around had been mutually consensual, a claim that the state disputed.  Following that claim to its logical conclusion, B.A.H. argued that if the statute allows this then that statute is void for vagueness.  He also argued that for the state to have charged one and not the other violated his right to equal protection.  The court of appeals agreed and reversed the juvenile conviction and adjudication.  Read here. 

Justice Anderson, writing for a unanimous court, reinstates the conviction and adjudication.  B.A.H. argued that when applied to the facts of his case both he and his cousin could be labeled as “actors” and “complainants”.  This makes the statute unconstitutionally vague.  The court says that even if this were so the statute is nonetheless not vague.  This is because the statutory language describes the kind of sexual conduct made criminal and specifies the persons with whom such contact is prohibited.

B.A.H.’s other challenge was that the statute violated his right to equal protection.  Essentially B.A.H. was saying that the state flipped a coin to decide who to charge.  While the court does not endorse coin flip charging decisions, it does reiterate that a prosecutor’s charging discretion is broad and courts will not interfere with that discretion except in extraordinary circumstances.  Here the state needed only a rational basis for its charging decision.  The state cited numerous reasons for its decision to charge only B.A.H. and the court found them to be permissible “and related to the enforcement of” the statue at issue.  The state’s charging decision was thus rational and constitutional.