Preview:

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A07-1783 State of Minnesota, Appellant, vs. David Soukup, Respondent. Filed April 8, 2008 Reversed Ross , Judge Hennepin County District Court File No. 07002123 Lori Swanson, Attorney General, 1800 Bremer Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-2134; and Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Linda M. Freyer, Assistant County Attorney, C-2000 Government Center, Minneapolis, MN 55487 (for appellant) Carol Grant, Kurzman Grant Law Office, 219 Southeast Main Street, Suite 403, Minneapolis, MN 55414 (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Lansing, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Johnson, Judge. SYLLABUS For a victim to report sexual abuse, triggering the statute-of-limitations period set forth in Minnesota Statutes section 628.26, the victim must report the abuse to law enforcement authorities, not merely disclose it to a relative.

OPINION ROSS, Judge This appeal requires us to decide whether the statute of limitations prevents the state from prosecuting David Soukup for sexually abusing his now-adult step-daughter when she was nine years old. The district court dismissed the criminal complaint based on its interpretation of the statute of limitations and also because it determined that the Ex Post Facto Clause of the federal Constitution prohibits the state from prosecuting Soukup. Because the district court erroneously interpreted the statute of limitations and misapplied the Ex Post Facto Clause, we reverse the district court's order dismissing the criminal complaint. FACTS On November 1, 2006, C.K. contacted the Minneapolis Police Department and reported that her adoptive father, David Michael Soukup, had sexually abused her between 1984 and 1987 when she was nine to twelve years old. She alleged that Soukup performed oral sex on her and required her to perform oral sex on him. C.K. had previously told her cousin about the abuse in July 1996, when C.K. was 21. The police interviewed Soukup in January 2007, and Soukup admitted the allegations of abuse. He confessed to requiring C.K. to perform oral sex, and although he denied remembering her age when the abuse occurred, he acknowledged that it happened when she was in elementary school. The state charged Soukup with one count of firstdegree criminal sexual conduct in violation of Minnesota Statutes section 609.342, subdivisions 1(a) and (2) (1984). 2

Soukup soon moved the district court for dismissal, arguing that the statute of limitations barred prosecution for the 20-year-old conduct. The applicable statute of limitations has a nine-year offense-to-prosecution period with an exception for cases in which the victim has waited a longer period to report the abuse. It provides as follows: Indictments or complaints for [first-degree criminal sexual conduct] if the victim was under the age of 18 years at the time the offense was committed, shall be found or made and filed in the proper court within nine years after the commission of the offense or, if the victim failed to report the offense within this limitation period, within three years after the offense was reported to law enforcement authorities. Minn. Stat.

Download A07-1783, State of Minnesota, Appellant, vs. David Soukup, Respondent..pdf

Minnesota Law