Key: (1) language to be deleted (2) new language
Laws of Minnesota 1985
CHAPTER 297-H.F.No. 1227
An act relating to crimes; providing that a
psychotherapist who engages in sexual contact or
penetration with a patient under certain circumstances
is guilty of criminal sexual conduct; limiting
admissibility of a patient's personal or medical
history; amending Minnesota Statutes 1984, sections
609.341, by adding subdivisions; 609.344; 609.345; and
609.347, by adding a subdivision.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 1984, section 609.341, is
amended by adding a subdivision to read:
Subd. 16. "Patient" means a person who seeks or obtains
psychotherapeutic services.
Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 1984, section 609.341, is
amended by adding a subdivision to read:
Subd. 17. "Psychotherapist" means a physician,
psychologist, nurse, chemical dependency counselor, social
worker, clergy, or other person, whether or not licensed by the
state, who performs or purports to perform psychotherapy.
Sec. 3. Minnesota Statutes 1984, section 609.341, is
amended by adding a subdivision to read:
Subd. 18. "Psychotherapy" means the professional
treatment, assessment, or counseling of a mental or emotional
illness, symptom, or condition.
Sec. 4. Minnesota Statutes 1984, section 609.341, is
amended by adding a subdivision to read:
Subd. 19. "Emotionally dependent" means that the nature of
the patient's or former patient's emotional condition and the
nature of the treatment provided by the psychotherapist are such
that the psychotherapist knows or has reason to know that the
patient or former patient is unable to withhold consent to
sexual contact or sexual penetration by the psychotherapist.
Sec. 5. Minnesota Statutes 1984, section 609.341, is
amended by adding a subdivision to read:
Subd. 20. "Therapeutic deception" means a representation
by a psychotherapist that sexual contact or sexual penetration
by the psychotherapist is consistent with or part of the
patient's treatment.
Sec. 6. Minnesota Statutes 1984, section 609.344, is
amended to read:
609.344 [CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT IN THE THIRD DEGREE.]
A person is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the third
degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than
ten years, or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or
both, if he engages in sexual penetration with another person
and any of the following circumstances exists:
(a) The complainant is under 13 years of age and the actor
is no more than 36 months older than the complainant. Neither
mistake as to the complainant's age nor consent to the act by
the complainant shall be a defense; or
(b) The complainant is at least 13 but less than 16 years
of age and the actor is more than 24 months older than the
complainant. In any such case it shall be an affirmative
defense, which must be proved by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the actor believes the complainant to be 16 years
of age or older. If the actor in such a case is no more than 48
months but more than 24 months older than the complainant, he
may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years.
Consent by the complainant is not a defense; or
(c) The actor uses force or coercion to accomplish the
penetration; or
(d) The actor knows or has reason to know that the
complainant is mentally defective, mentally incapacitated, or
physically helpless; or
(e) The complainant is at least 16 but less than 18 years
of age and the actor is more than 48 months older than the
complainant and in a position of authority over the complainant,
and uses this authority to cause the complainant to submit.
Neither mistake as to the complainant's age nor consent to the
act by the complainant is a defense;
(h) The actor is a psychotherapist and the complainant is a
patient of the psychotherapist and the sexual penetration
occurred during the psychotherapy session. Consent by the
complainant is not a defense;
(i) The actor is a psychotherapist and the complainant is a
patient or former patient of the psychotherapist and the patient
or former patient is emotionally dependent upon the
psychotherapist; or
(j) The actor is a psychotherapist and the complainant is a
patient or former patient and the sexual penetration occurred by
means of therapeutic deception. Consent by the complainant is
not a defense.
Sec. 7. Minnesota Statutes 1984, section 609.345, is
amended to read:
609.345 [CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT IN THE FOURTH DEGREE.]
A person is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the fourth
degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than
five years, or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or
both, if he engages in sexual contact with another person and if
any of the following circumstances exists:
(a) The complainant is under 13 years of age and the actor
is no more than 36 months older than the complainant. Neither
mistake as to the complainant's age or consent to the act by the
complainant is a defense. In a prosecution under this clause,
the state is not required to prove that the sexual contact was
coerced; or
(b) The complainant is at least 13 but less than 16 years
of age and the actor is more than 48 months older than the
complainant or in a position of authority over the complainant
and uses this authority to cause the complainant to submit. In
any such case, it shall be an affirmative defense which must be
proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the actor
believes the complainant to be 16 years of age or older; or
(c) The actor uses force or coercion to accomplish the
sexual contact; or
(d) The actor knows or has reason to know that the
complainant is mentally defective, mentally incapacitated, or
physically helpless; or
(e) The complainant is at least 16 but less than 18 years
of age and the actor is more than 48 months older than the
complainant and in a position of authority over the complainant,
and uses this authority to cause the complainant to submit.
Neither mistake as to the complainant's age nor consent to the
act by the complainant is a defense;
(h) The actor is a psychotherapist and the complainant is a
patient of the psychotherapist and the sexual contact occurred
during the psychotherapy session. Consent by the complainant is
not a defense;
(i) The actor is a psychotherapist and the complainant is a
patient or former patient of the psychotherapist and the patient
or former patient is emotionally dependent upon the
psychotherapist; or
(j) The actor is a psychotherapist and the complainant is a
patient or former patient and the sexual contact occurred by
means of therapeutic deception. Consent by the complainant is
not a defense.
Sec. 8. Minnesota Statutes 1984, section 609.347, is
amended by adding a subdivision to read:
Subd. 6. (a) In a prosecution under sections 609.342 to
609.346 involving a psychotherapist and patient, evidence of the
patient's personal or medical history is not admissible except
when:
(1) the defendent requests a hearing prior to trial and
makes an offer of proof of the relevancy of the history; and
(2) the court finds that the history is relevant and that
the probative value of the history outweighs its prejudicial
value.
(b) The court shall allow the admission only of specific
information or examples of conduct of the complainant that are
determined by the court to be relevant. The court's order shall
detail the information or conduct that is admissible and no
other evidence of the history may be introduced.
(c) Violation of the terms of the order is grounds for
mistrial but does not prevent the retrial of the defendant.
Sec. 9. [EFFECTIVE DATE.]
Sections 1 to 8 are effective August 1, 1985, and apply to
crimes committed on or after that date.
Approved June 4, 1985
Official Publication of the State of Minnesota
Revisor of Statutes