Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 609.342 (2026)

Criminal Sexual Conduct In The First Degree

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subdivision 1.Adult victim; crime defined.

A person who engages in sexual penetration with another person is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree if any of the following circumstances exists:

(a) circumstances existing at the time of the act cause the complainant to have a reasonable fear of imminent great bodily harm to the complainant or another;

(b) the actor is armed with a dangerous weapon or any article used or fashioned in a manner to lead the complainant to reasonably believe it to be a dangerous weapon and uses or threatens to use the weapon or article to cause the complainant to submit;

(i) the actor uses coercion to accomplish the act;

(ii) the actor uses force, as defined in section 609.341, subdivision 3, clause (2); or

(iii) the actor knows or has reason to know that the complainant is mentally impaired, mentally incapacitated, or physically helpless;

(d) the actor uses force as defined in section 609.341, subdivision 3, clause (1); or

(e) the actor is aided or abetted by one or more accomplices within the meaning of section 609.05, and either of the following circumstances exists:

(i) the actor or an accomplice uses force or coercion to cause the complainant to submit; or

(ii) the actor or an accomplice is armed with a dangerous weapon or any article used or fashioned in a manner to lead the complainant reasonably to believe it to be a dangerous weapon and uses or threatens to use the weapon or article to cause the complainant to submit.

Subd. 1a.Victim under the age of 18; crime defined.

A person who engages in penetration with anyone under 18 years of age or sexual contact with a person under 14 years of age as defined in section 609.341, subdivision 11, paragraph (c), is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree if any of the following circumstances exists:

(a) circumstances existing at the time of the act cause the complainant to have a reasonable fear of imminent great bodily harm to the complainant or another;

(i) the actor uses coercion to accomplish the act;

(ii) the actor uses force, as defined in section 609.341, subdivision 3, clause (2); or

(iii) the actor knows or has reason to know that the complainant is mentally impaired, mentally incapacitated, or physically helpless;

(d) the actor is aided or abetted by one or more accomplices within the meaning of section 609.05, and either of the following circumstances exists:

(i) the actor or an accomplice uses force or coercion to cause the complainant to submit; or

(ii) the actor or an accomplice is armed with a dangerous weapon or any article used or fashioned in a manner to lead the complainant to reasonably believe it to be a dangerous weapon and uses or threatens to use the weapon or article to cause the complainant to submit;

(e) the complainant is under 14 years of age and the actor is more than 36 months older than the complainant. Neither mistake as to the complainant's age nor consent to the act by the complainant is a defense;

(f) the complainant is at least 14 years of age but less than 16 years of age and:

(i) the actor is more than 36 months older than the complainant; and

(ii) the actor is in a current or recent position of authority over the complainant.

Neither mistake as to the complainant's age nor consent to the act by the complainant is a defense;

(g) the complainant was under 16 years of age at the time of the act and the actor has a significant relationship to the complainant. Neither mistake as to the complainant's age nor consent to the act by the complainant is a defense;

(h) the complainant was under 16 years of age at the time of the act, and the actor has a significant relationship to the complainant and any of the following circumstances exist:

(i) the actor or an accomplice used force or coercion to accomplish the act;

(ii) the complainant suffered personal injury; or

(iii) the sexual abuse involved multiple acts committed over an extended period of time.

Neither mistake as to the complainant's age nor consent to the act by the complainant is a defense; or

(i) the actor uses force, as defined in section 609.341, subdivision 3, clause (1).

Subd. 2.Penalty.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in section 609.3455; or Minnesota Statutes 2004, section 609.109, a person convicted under subdivision 1 or subdivision 1a may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 30 years or to a payment of a fine of not more than $40,000, or both.

(b) Unless a longer mandatory minimum sentence is otherwise required by law or the Sentencing Guidelines provide for a longer presumptive executed sentence, the court shall presume that an executed sentence of 144 months must be imposed on an offender convicted of violating this section. Sentencing a person in a manner other than that described in this paragraph is a departure from the Sentencing Guidelines.

Subd. 3.Stay.

Except when imprisonment is required under section 609.3455; or Minnesota Statutes 2004, section 609.109, if a person is convicted under subdivision 1a, clause (g), the court may stay imposition or execution of the sentence if it finds that:

(a) a stay is in the best interest of the complainant or the family unit; and

(b) a professional assessment indicates that the offender has been accepted by and can respond to a treatment program.

If the court stays imposition or execution of sentence, it shall include the following as conditions of probation:

(1) incarceration in a local jail or workhouse;

(2) a requirement that the offender complete a treatment program; and

(3) a requirement that the offender have no unsupervised contact with the complainant until the offender has successfully completed the treatment program unless approved by the treatment program and the supervising correctional agent.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 628 cases (38 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: Taylor v. State, 670 N.W.2d 584 (Minn. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Taylor v. State, 670 N.W.2d 584 (Minn. 2003). · cites it 20× “Appellant Richard Taylor entered a guilty plea to criminal sexual conduct in the first degree, in violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.342, subd. 1(a) (2002) (engaging in sexual contact with a person under 13 years of age as defined in section 609.”

State v. Dettman, 719 N.W.2d 644 (Minn. 2006). · cites it 28× “, Chief Justice. Respondent Douglas Alan Dettman pleaded guilty to one count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct.”

Jason Donald Matakis v. State of Minnesota, 862 N.W.2d 33 (Minn. 2015). · cites it 24× “Appellant Jason Matakis pleaded guilty to one count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, Minn. Stat § 609.342, subd. 1(h)(iii) (2014), and was sentenced to 144 months in prison.”

State v. Shattuck, 704 N.W.2d 131 (Minn. 2005). · cites it 14× “Minn.Stat. § 609.342, subd. 2(a) (2004). We also note that because section 609.”

Women of the State v. Gomez, 542 N.W.2d 17 (Minn. 1995). · cites it 28× “Minn.Stat. § 609.342, subd. 1 (1992). Although the rape exception under section 256B.”

State v. Grossman, 636 N.W.2d 545 (Minn. 2001). · cites it 21× “Jay Grossman was convicted of, inter alia, first-degree criminal sexual conduct (fear of imminent great bodily harm) in violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.342, subd. 1(c) (1998), an offense that carries a maximum sentence of 30 years’ imprisonment.”

State v. Shamp, 422 N.W.2d 520 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 48× “Appellant William Shamp was convicted of one count of first degree criminal sexual conduct in violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.342, subd. 1(h)(v) (1986), and one count of second degree criminal sexual conduct in violation of Minn.”

State of Minnesota v. Antoine Rumel Little, 851 N.W.2d 878 (Minn. 2014). · cites it 16× “Appellant Antoine Rumel Little was found guilty of one count of first- degree criminal sexual conduct, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.342 , subd. 1(e)(i) (2012), one count of third-degree criminal sexual conduct, in violation of Minn.”

State v. Sebasky, 547 N.W.2d 93 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 38× “1(a) (complainant under 13 years of age and actor more than 36 months older than complainant), and two counts of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree in violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.342, subd. 1(g) (complainant under 16 years of age and actor has a significant…”

State v. Ronquist, 600 N.W.2d 444 (Minn. 1999). · cites it 34× “Appellant Richard Thomas Ronquist was charged by complaint with, and subsequently convicted of, attempted criminal sexual conduct in the first-degree in violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.342, subd. 1(e)(i) (1998) and Minn.”

State v. Wukawitz, 662 N.W.2d 517 (Minn. 2003). · cites it 10× “, pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct in violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.342, subds. 1(a) and 2 (1992).”

State v. Yaritz, 791 N.W.2d 138 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 23× “The state charged Yaritz with one count of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree in violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.342, subd. l(e)(ii) (2008), and one count of use of a minor in a sexual performance in violation of Minn.”

Show all 628 citing cases →

— Minn. Stat. § 609.342(1)(e) — 1 case

United States v. Oscar Hernandez, 483 F. App'x 938 (5th Cir. 2012).

— Minn. Stat. § 609.342(a) — 34 cases

State v. Cermak, 344 N.W.2d 833 (Minn. 1984).

Women of the State v. Gomez, 542 N.W.2d 17 (Minn. 1995). “Minn.Stat. § 609.342, subd. 1 (1992). Although the rape exception under section 256B.”

State v. Myers, 359 N.W.2d 604 (Minn. 1984).

State v. Partlow, 321 N.W.2d 886 (Minn. 1982).

State v. Posten, 302 N.W.2d 638 (Minn. 1981).

— Minn. Stat. § 609.342(b) — 12 cases

State v. Hall, 406 N.W.2d 503 (Minn. 1987).

State v. Dudrey, 330 N.W.2d 719 (Minn. 1983).

State v. Peterson, 329 N.W.2d 58 (Minn. 1983).

State v. Hesse, 281 N.W.2d 491 (Minn. 1979).

State v. Johnson, 327 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. 1982).

— Minn. Stat. § 609.342(c) — 34 cases

State v. Bettin, 295 N.W.2d 542 (Minn. 1980).

State v. Martinez, 319 N.W.2d 699 (Minn. 1982).

State v. Beard, 380 N.W.2d 537 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986).

State v. LaTourelle, 343 N.W.2d 277 (Minn. 1984).

State v. Booker, 348 N.W.2d 753 (Minn. 1984).

— Minn. Stat. § 609.342(d) — 21 cases

State v. Martinez, 319 N.W.2d 699 (Minn. 1982).

State v. Mesich, 396 N.W.2d 46 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986).

State v. Vazquez, 330 N.W.2d 110 (Minn. 1983).

State v. LaTourelle, 343 N.W.2d 277 (Minn. 1984).

State v. Heinkel, 322 N.W.2d 322 (Minn. 1982).

— Minn. Stat. § 609.342(e) — 9 cases

State v. LaTourelle, 343 N.W.2d 277 (Minn. 1984).

State v. Rose, 353 N.W.2d 565 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984).

State v. Grampre, 766 N.W.2d 347 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009).

State v. Smith, 299 N.W.2d 504 (Minn. 1980).

State v. Herrmann, 479 N.W.2d 724 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992).

— Minn. Stat. § 609.342(e)(1) — 1 case

State v. Gardner, 328 N.W.2d 159 (Minn. 1983).

— Minn. Stat. § 609.342(e)(i) — 25 cases

State v. Lindahl, 309 N.W.2d 763 (Minn. 1981).

State v. MacK, 292 N.W.2d 764 (Minn. 1980).

State v. Beard, 380 N.W.2d 537 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986).

State v. LaTourelle, 343 N.W.2d 277 (Minn. 1984).

State v. O'BRIEN, 364 N.W.2d 901 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985).

— Minn. Stat. § 609.342(e)(ii) — 3 cases

Women of the State v. Gomez, 542 N.W.2d 17 (Minn. 1995). “Minn.Stat. § 609.342, subd. 1 (1992). Although the rape exception under section 256B.”

State v. Gardner, 328 N.W.2d 159 (Minn. 1983).

State v. Gelhar, 392 N.W.2d 609 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986).

— Minn. Stat. § 609.342(f) — 2 cases

State v. Vazquez, 330 N.W.2d 110 (Minn. 1983).

In Re the Welfare of T. D. S., 289 N.W.2d 137 (Minn. 1980).

— Minn. Stat. § 609.342(f)(i) — 2 cases

Bixby v. State, 344 N.W.2d 390 (Minn. 1984).

State v. Whiteside, 329 N.W.2d 55 (Minn. 1983).

— Minn. Stat. § 609.342(l)(a) — 1 case

United States v. Faustino Gomez, 757 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 2014).

— Minn. Stat. § 609.342(l)(b) — 1 case

United States v. Faustino Gomez, 757 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 2014).

— Minn. Stat. § 609.342(l)(e) — 1 case

United States v. Oscar Hernandez, 483 F. App'x 938 (5th Cir. 2012).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.