2014-M-261   State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. William Francis Melchert-Dinkel, Appellant.

MAJORITY:  After communicating with appellant William Melchert-Dinkel, Mark Drybrough and Nadia Kajouji each committed suicide.  This appeal presents the issue of whether the State of Minnesota may, consistent with the First Amendment, prosecute MelchertDinkel for advising, encouraging, or assisting another in committing suicide in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.215, subd. 1 (2012), which makes it illegal to “intentionally advise[], encourage[], or assist[] another in taking the other’s own life.”  We conclude that the State may prosecute Melchert-Dinkel for assisting another in committing suicide, but not for encouraging or advising another to commit suicide.  Because the district court did not make a specific finding on whether Melchert-Dinkel assisted the victims’ suicides, we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

HELD:  1.    The speech prohibited by Minn. Stat. § 609.215, subd. 1 (2012), does not fall within the “speech integral to criminal conduct” or “incitement” categories of unprotected First Amendment speech.

2. The specific speech used by Melchert-Dinkel in this case does not fall within the “fraud” category of unprotected First Amendment speech.

3. The statutory prohibition against assisting another to commit suicide does not violate the First Amendment because it is narrowly drawn to serve a compelling government interest. 

4. The statutory prohibitions against encouraging and advising another to commit suicide violate the First Amendment because they are not narrowly drawn to serve a compelling government interest.

5. The terms “advises” and “encourages” are severed from Minn. Stat. § 609.215, subd. 1, as unconstitutional.

6. Because the district court made no findings regarding whether appellant assisted the victims’ suicides, a remand is required. 

Reversed and remanded.

DISSENT:  Justice Page opined: “I agree with the court’s rationale and holding that the words “advises” and “encourages” must be severed from Minn. Stat. § 609.215, subd. 1 (2012), as

unconstitutional.  I disagree, however, with the court’s remand to the district court for a determination of whether Melchert-Dinkel’s actions constitute “assist[ing]” Mark Drybrough and Nadia Kajouji in taking their own lives for three reasons.  First, the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Melchert-Dinkel actually “assist[ed]” Drybrough’s and Kajouji’s suicides.  Second, from the very beginning of this prosecution, the State’s case has focused on whether MelchertDinkel “advise[d]” or “encourage[d]” Drybrough and Kajouji to commit suicide, not whether he “assist[ed]” their suicides.  Third, because the record demonstrates that the district court deliberately omitted the word “assisted” from its finding that MelchertDinkel “intentionally advised and encouraged” Drybrough and Kajouji in taking their own lives, a remand will be a waste of scarce judicial resources.

Barry Anderson (Gildea, Dietzen, and Stras)

            Dissent: Page

            Took no part: Wright and Lillehaug

[CRIME] [SUICIDE] [FIRST][MURDER]

A11-987,