Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 609. CRIMINAL CODE
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 609.43 (2026)

Misconduct Of Public Officer Or Employee

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A public officer or employee who does any of the following, for which no other sentence is specifically provided by law, may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 364 days or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both:

(1) intentionally fails or refuses to perform a known mandatory, nondiscretionary, ministerial duty of the office or employment within the time or in the manner required by law; or

(2) in the capacity of such officer or employee, does an act knowing it is in excess of lawful authority or knowing it is forbidden by law to be done in that capacity; or

(3) under pretense or color of official authority intentionally and unlawfully injures another in the other's person, property, or rights; or

(4) in the capacity of such officer or employee, makes a return, certificate, official report, or other like document having knowledge it is false in any material respect.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: State v. Andersen, 370 N.W.2d 653 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Andersen, 370 N.W.2d 653 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 51× “Following a jury trial in Carver County District Court, Gail Andersen was convicted of two counts of misconduct of a public officer under Minn.Stat. § 609.43(2) (1984). On appeal, Andersen contends (a) that one of the three indictments which Andersen was charged with was…”
State v. Ford, 397 N.W.2d 875 (Minn. 1986). · cites it 22× “…return, certificate, official report, or other like document which to his knowledge is false in any material respect. Minn.Stat. § 609.43 (1984).”
State v. Serstock, 390 N.W.2d 399 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 92× “As a result of alleged "ticket fixing" activities, Serstock was indicted by a grand jury for violating the public officer misconduct statute, Minn.Stat. § 609.43(2) (1984). Count I of the indictment alleges that Serstock, while financially indebted to Erwin Dauphin, dismissed or…”
State v. Ford, 377 N.W.2d 62 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 89× “Did the trial court err in denying appellant's motion to dismiss and in ruling that the complaint alleged sufficient probable cause to charge appellant under Minn. Stat. § 609.43 (2) and (3)? 2. Did the trial court err in refusing to allow appellant to withdraw his guilty plea…”
State v. Serstock, 402 N.W.2d 514 (Minn. 1987). · cites it 18× “Serstock was indicted by a grand jury on three counts of violating the public officer misconduct statute, Minn.Stat. § 609.43(2) (1984). In a pretrial order, the trial court dismissed the indictment on the grounds that the facts alleged did not constitute an offense and that the…”
State v. Flicek, 657 N.W.2d 592 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 7× “§§ 609.43, subd. 4 (2000), and 609.05 (2000).”
Diesen v. Hessburg, 455 N.W.2d 446 (Minn. 1990). · cites it 4× “See Minn.Stat. § 609.43 (1988) (misconduct of public officers).”
Weigman v. Everest Inst., 957 F. Supp. 2d 1102 (D. Minnesota 2013). · cites it 4× “” Minn.Stat. § 609.43, subd. 1(5). Case law interpreting this portion of the forgery statute is thin.”
State of Minnesota v. Jerry Arnold Westrom, 6 N.W.3d 145 (Minn. 2024). · cites it 2× “09 (a) (2022), and violated Minn. Stat. § 609.43 (2022) when they committed the previous two offenses as public employees.”
In Re Collection of Delinquent Real Prop. Taxes, 530 N.W.2d 200 (Minn. 1995). · cites it 2× “In this case, AFC's counterclaim did not relate to the validity of the tax; instead, it is a counterclaim in negligence alleging slander and violations of Minn.Stat. §§ 609.43 and 549.21, for actions associated with the previously dismissed forfeiture action.”
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Serstock, 432 N.W.2d 179 (Minn. 1988). · cites it 2× “On October 29, 1985, respondent was indicted by the Hennepin County Grand Jury on three counts of public misconduct under Minn. Stat. § 609.43 (2) (1984) in connection with his conduct as deputy city attorney.”
The PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORY OF GUAM, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Franklin Borja CAMACHO, Defendant-Appellant, 103 F.3d 863 (9th Cir. 1996). “746 (West 1994); Minn.Stat. Ann. § 609.43 (1995); Mont.Code Ann.”
Show all 21 citing cases →
— Minn. Stat. § 609.43(2) — 8 cases
State v. Andersen, 370 N.W.2d 653 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). “Following a jury trial in Carver County District Court, Gail Andersen was convicted of two counts of misconduct of a public officer under Minn.Stat. § 609.43(2) (1984). On appeal, Andersen contends (a) that one of the three indictments which Andersen was charged with was…”
State v. Serstock, 390 N.W.2d 399 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). “As a result of alleged "ticket fixing" activities, Serstock was indicted by a grand jury for violating the public officer misconduct statute, Minn.Stat. § 609.43(2) (1984). Count I of the indictment alleges that Serstock, while financially indebted to Erwin Dauphin, dismissed or…”
State v. Ford, 397 N.W.2d 875 (Minn. 1986). “…return, certificate, official report, or other like document which to his knowledge is false in any material respect. Minn.Stat. § 609.43 (1984).”
State v. Ford, 377 N.W.2d 62 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). “Did the trial court err in denying appellant's motion to dismiss and in ruling that the complaint alleged sufficient probable cause to charge appellant under Minn. Stat. § 609.43 (2) and (3)? 2. Did the trial court err in refusing to allow appellant to withdraw his guilty plea…”
State v. Serstock, 402 N.W.2d 514 (Minn. 1987). “Serstock was indicted by a grand jury on three counts of violating the public officer misconduct statute, Minn.Stat. § 609.43(2) (1984). In a pretrial order, the trial court dismissed the indictment on the grounds that the facts alleged did not constitute an offense and that the…”
— Minn. Stat. § 609.43(3) — 2 cases
State v. Andersen, 370 N.W.2d 653 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). “Following a jury trial in Carver County District Court, Gail Andersen was convicted of two counts of misconduct of a public officer under Minn.Stat. § 609.43(2) (1984). On appeal, Andersen contends (a) that one of the three indictments which Andersen was charged with was…”
State v. Ford, 377 N.W.2d 62 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). “Did the trial court err in denying appellant's motion to dismiss and in ruling that the complaint alleged sufficient probable cause to charge appellant under Minn. Stat. § 609.43 (2) and (3)? 2. Did the trial court err in refusing to allow appellant to withdraw his guilty plea…”
— Minn. Stat. § 609.43(4) — 1 case
State v. Flicek, 657 N.W.2d 592 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003). “§§ 609.43, subd. 4 (2000), and 609.05 (2000).”
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.