State v. Duggan

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Duggan

192 N.W.2d 185, 291 Minn. 422, 1971 Minn. LEXIS 1049

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedNovember 19, 1971

Docket42889

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 192 N.W.2d 185 (State v. Duggan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Duggan, 192 N.W.2d 185, 291 Minn. 422, 1971 Minn. LEXIS 1049 (Mich. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Murphy, Justice.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of violation of St. Paul Legislative Code, § 470.03, which provides:

“No person shall loiter or lurk on the streets, or in a public place, or in a place open to the public, with intent to solicit for the purpose of prostitution or any other act prohibited by law.”

Because the state has failed in its proof to establish the essential element of intent to commit the offense, we reverse. We said in State v. Armstrong, 282 Minn. 39, 42, 162 N. W. 2d 357, 360 (1968):

“* * * Whatever the arguable ambiguity or generality as to the element of ‘lurking’ or ‘loitering,’ there is none whatever as to the element of intent. The element of intent gives meaning to the element of lurking or loitering and is a rational basis for proscribing such acts as harmful conduct. Both elements of the offense must, of course, be proved. The overt act of lurking or loitering, standing alone, is not made punishable by the provisions of the ordinances under which defendant was charged. An unlawful intent, without more, is not made punishable.”

There is no evidence in the record of prior offenses, prior unlawful conduct on the part of defendant, nor of reputation or actual solicitation which would support the conviction. From an examination of the record, it appears that the conviction rests largely upon the suspicion of the arresting officer.

Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Murphy, Justice.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of violation of St. Paul Legislative Code, § 470.03, which provides:

“No person shall loiter or lurk on the streets, or in a public place, or in a place open to the public, with intent to solicit for the purpose of prostitution or any other act prohibited by law.”

Because the state has failed in its proof to establish the essential element of intent to commit the offense, we reverse. We said in State v. Armstrong, 282 Minn. 39, 42, 162 N. W. 2d 357, 360 (1968):

“* * * Whatever the arguable ambiguity or generality as to the element of ‘lurking’ or ‘loitering,’ there is none whatever as to the element of intent. The element of intent gives meaning to the element of lurking or loitering and is a rational basis for proscribing such acts as harmful conduct. Both elements of the offense must, of course, be proved. The overt act of lurking or loitering, standing alone, is not made punishable by the provisions of the ordinances under which defendant was charged. An unlawful intent, without more, is not made punishable.”

There is no evidence in the record of prior offenses, prior unlawful conduct on the part of defendant, nor of reputation or actual solicitation which would support the conviction. From an examination of the record, it appears that the conviction rests largely upon the suspicion of the arresting officer.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 N.W.2d 185, 291 Minn. 422, 1971 Minn. LEXIS 1049, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-duggan-minn-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack