Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 609.343 (2026)

Criminal Sexual Conduct In The Second 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 contact with another person is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the second 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 dangerous weapon to cause the complainant to submit;

(i) the actor uses coercion to accomplish the sexual contact;

(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 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.

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

A person who engages in sexual contact with anyone under 18 years of age is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the second 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 sexual contact;

(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

(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. In a prosecution under this clause, the state is not required to prove that the sexual contact was coerced;

(f) the complainant is at least 14 but less than 16 years of age and the actor is more than 36 months older than the complainant and 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 sexual contact 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 actor has a significant relationship to the complainant, the complainant was under 16 years of age at the time of the sexual contact, and:

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

(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 25 years or to a payment of a fine of not more than $35,000, 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 90 months must be imposed on an offender convicted of violating subdivision 1, clause (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e), or subdivision 1a, clause (a), (b), (c), (d), (h), or (i). 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 234 cases (26 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: State v. Vick, 632 N.W.2d 676 (Minn. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Vick, 632 N.W.2d 676 (Minn. 2001). · cites it 29× “In May 1999, respondent Edwin Olaf Vick was found guilty by a jury and convicted of second-degree criminal sexual conduct in violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.343, subd. 1(a) (2000). Vick petitioned for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel and…”

Jason Donald Matakis v. State of Minnesota, 862 N.W.2d 33 (Minn. 2015). · cites it 16× “342 (2014) and three counts of criminal sexual conduct in the second degree under Minn. Stat. § 609.343 (2014). 1 Matakis entered an Alford guilty plea 2 to one count of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree, in violation of Minn.”

State v. Austin, 788 N.W.2d 788 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 22× “Does the intent element of second-degree criminal sexual conduct, as defined in Minn.Stat. § 609.343, subd. 1(a) (2006), require the state to prove that the defendant acted with sexual or aggressive intent and intended a particular result? II.”

State v. Ness, 707 N.W.2d 676 (Minn. 2006). · cites it 6× “Appellant, Paul Kermit Ness, was charged with second-degree criminal sexual conduct, in violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.343, subd. 1(a) (2004), for inappropriately touching an 11-year-old boy during an art class Ness taught.”

State v. Fields, 730 N.W.2d 777 (Minn. 2007). · cites it 8× “1(g), 2(a) (1996); one count of second-degree criminal sexual conduct in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.343 , subds. 1(a), 2(a) (1996); and one count of second-degree criminal sexual conduct in violation of Minn.”

State of Minnesota v. Dakari Michael Coles, 862 N.W.2d 477 (Minn. 2015). · cites it 8× “In this case, Coles’ sentence of commitment to the Commissioner of Corrections for 48 months for second-degree criminal sexual conduct, Minn. Stat. § 609.343 , subd. 1(a) (2014), is a greater-than-double upward durational departure from the presumptive stayed sentence of 21…”

State v. Scott, 501 N.W.2d 608 (Minn. 1993). · cites it 14× “We believe that the state has shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have convicted on the second degree charge even if the evidence admitted in error had been excluded at trial.”

Taylor v. State, 670 N.W.2d 584 (Minn. 2003). · cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 609.343, subd. 1(a) (1992) (sexual contact with a child under the age of 13, where the actor is more than 36 months older than the child).”

Bjerke v. Johnson, 742 N.W.2d 660 (Minn. 2007). · cites it 4× “Whether consent can form the basis of an affirmative defense of assumption of the risk in a civil suit concerning the sexual abuse of a child, however, is an issue of first impression in this state.”

State v. Shamp, 422 N.W.2d 520 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 12× “1(h)(v) (1986), and one count of second degree criminal sexual conduct in violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.343, subd. 1(g) (1986). On appeal, appellant claims the trial court erred in its jury instructions, improperly denied his right of cross examination, erred in allowing the…”

O'MEARA v. State, 679 N.W.2d 334 (Minn. 2004). · cites it 4× “O’Meara was convicted of two counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct under Minn.Stat. § 609.343, subd. 1(a)(2) (1998).”

State v. Mitchell, 577 N.W.2d 481 (Minn. 1998). · cites it 8× “1(a) (1996) (requiring that voters be 18 years old); Minn.Stat. § 609.343, subd. 1(a) (1996) (criminalizing sexual contact with a child under the age of 13 when the actor is more than 36 months older even if the 13-year-old consents to the contact); Minn.”

Show all 234 citing cases →

— Minn. Stat. § 609.343(a) — 20 cases

State v. Cermak, 350 N.W.2d 328 (Minn. 1984).

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

State v. Cermak, 365 N.W.2d 243 (Minn. 1985).

State v. Bellotti, 383 N.W.2d 308 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986).

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

— Minn. Stat. § 609.343(b) — 1 case

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

— Minn. Stat. § 609.343(c) — 4 cases

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

Stephens v. State, 369 N.W.2d 603 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985).

State v. Lockhart, 376 N.W.2d 249 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985).

In re the Welfare of S. R., 289 N.W.2d 495 (Minn. 1980).

— Minn. Stat. § 609.343(d) — 2 cases

State v. Hayes, 304 N.W.2d 882 (Minn. 1981).

Palm v. State, 321 N.W.2d 34 (Minn. 1982).

— Minn. Stat. § 609.343(e) — 2 cases

State v. Mattson, 376 N.W.2d 413 (Minn. 1985).

State v. Mar, 291 N.W.2d 223 (Minn. 1980).

— Minn. Stat. § 609.343(e)(i) — 5 cases

State v. Mattson, 376 N.W.2d 413 (Minn. 1985).

In Re the Welfare of D.L.K., 381 N.W.2d 435 (Minn. 1986).

State v. Dooley, 380 N.W.2d 582 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986).

State v. Mattson, 356 N.W.2d 391 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984).

State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Clifford Robert Letourneau, III, Appellant (Minn. 2025).

— Minn. Stat. § 609.343(l)(a) — 1 case

United States v. Wences-Alcaide, 271 F. App'x 580 (9th Cir. 2008).

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.