The Meaning Of Touch

A criminal conviction for second degree criminal sexual contact has been affirmed by the Minnesota Supreme Court.

The contested issue involved the use of an inanimate object to accomplish the contact and whether such contact was a touch

In late December 2015, during a forensic interview with a child protection investigator, [defendant] Wocelka’s daughter disclosed that her father had touched her “private parts” using a toy giraffe. She described the location and timing of the touching, as well as how it made her feel. The touching had occurred shortly before Christmas. After the interview, officers obtained a search warrant. In the search of Wocelka’s home, officers found a toy giraffe in the location that his daughter had described. The State charged Wocelka with three counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct.

Wocelka’s daughter testified at trial, consistent with her statement to the child protection investigator. She testified that when she was at her father’s house, he touched her vagina with the toy giraffe when he thought she was sleeping. She described the toy and said that it made her “very, very scared” when Wocelka touched her at night. She testified that the last time Wocelka touched her was the Thursday before Christmas in 2015. The State also submitted a recording of the December 2015 forensic interview of Wocelka’s daughter that was admitted without objection.

Holding

Wocelka appeals his conviction solely on statutory interpretation grounds. He does not claim that the evidence is insufficient to establish that he touched his daughter’s intimate parts with an object. Nor does he raise any argument that he did not have the required “sexual or aggressive intent.” See Minn. Stat. § 609.341, subd. 11(a) (2018). Because the jury found that he touched his daughter’s intimate parts with a toy, Wocelka violated section 609.343, subdivision 1(a), and we affirm his conviction.

Concurrance

Ultimately, the court comes to the correct conclusion today. After all, the purpose behind the criminal sexual assault statutes—to protect complainants from sexual assault— shows that the object with which an actor touches a complainant’s intimate parts is irrelevant when finding that criminal “sexual contact” has occurred. But performing a post-ambiguity purpose analysis is unnecessary because, based on the context of the statute in which it is found, the only reasonable interpretation of “touching” in Minnesota Statutes section 609.341, subdivision 11(a)(i), is the broad, plain-language definition “to bring something into contact with.”

(Mike Frisch)