§
Subdivision 1.Crime defined; obscene call.
Whoever,
(1) by means of a telephone,
(i) makes any comment, request, suggestion or proposal which is obscene, lewd, or lascivious,
(ii) with the intent to harass or intimidate another person, repeatedly makes telephone calls, whether or not conversation ensues, and thereby places the other person in reasonable fear of substantial bodily harm; places the person in reasonable fear that the person's family or household members will be subject to substantial bodily harm; or causes or would reasonably be expected to cause substantial emotional distress to the other person, or
(iii) with the intent to harass or intimidate any person at the called or notified number, makes or causes the telephone of another to repeatedly or continuously ring or receive electronic notifications and thereby places the other person in reasonable fear of substantial bodily harm; places the person in reasonable fear that the person's family or household members will be subject to substantial bodily harm; or causes or would reasonably be expected to cause substantial emotional distress as defined in section 609.749, subdivision 2, paragraph (a), clause (4), to the other person, or
(2) having control of a telephone, knowingly permits it to be used for any purpose prohibited by this section,
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
§
Subd. 2.Venue.
The offense may be prosecuted either at the place where the call is made or where it is received or, additionally in the case of wireless or electronic communication, where the sender or receiver resides.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1987–2024 · leading case:
State v. Pierce, 792 N.W.2d 83 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010).
State v. Pierce, 792 N.W.2d 83 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 6× “” Minn.Stat. § 609.79, subd. 2 (2008) (emphasis added).”
State v. Orsello, 554 N.W.2d 70 (Minn. 1996).
· cites it 4× “Another analogy is provided in the comparison of the crime of "repeatedly mak[ing] telephone calls, whether or not conversation ensues, with intent to abuse, disturb, or cause distress," Minn.Stat. § 609.79, subd. 1(1)(b) (1994), with the similar provision in the stalking…”
State v. Krejci, 458 N.W.2d 407 (Minn. 1990).
· cites it 4× “9 (Obscene or Harassing Telephone Calls) from Minn.Stat. § 609.79 (1971); Rule 24.02, subd.”
State v. Collins, 580 N.W.2d 36 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “2(4) (1996) (harassment by repeatedly making telephone calls); Minn.Stat. § 609.79, subd. 1(b) (1996) (repeatedly making telephone calls with intent to abuse, disturb, or cause distress); and Minn.”
State v. Mullen, 577 N.W.2d 505 (Minn. 1998).
· cites it 2× “605, subdivision 1, paragraph (b), clauses (3), (4), and (7); (8) section 609.79; (9) section 609.795; (10) section 609.”
Rohrer v. Rick, 529 N.W.2d 406 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 4× “Rick pleaded guilty to making "harassing telephone calls" in violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.79, subd. 1(1)(b), (c) (1990).”
Welsh v. Johnson, 508 N.W.2d 212 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 609.79 (1992) (criminal sanctions for obscene or harassing phone calls).”
State v. Orsello, 529 N.W.2d 481 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “746 (1994) (interference with privacy, requiring specific intent); Minn.Stat. § 609.79 (1994) (obscene or harassing telephone calls, requiring specific intent).”
State v. Badiner, 412 N.W.2d 810 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 4× “This appeal is from a judgment of conviction of two counts of making harassing telephone calls, Minn.Stat. § 609.79 (1984). Appellant Manley Badiner waived a jury trial, and agreed to stipulate to the criminal *811 complaints, retaining a right to address the court and present a…”
Saliterman v. State, 443 N.W.2d 841 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 2× “14(a) (1986), harassing telephone calls, Minn.Stat. § 609.79, subd. 1 (Supp.1987), and harassment (delivering unwanted packages), Minn.”
In re Disciplinary Action Against Mueller, 540 N.W.2d 77 (Minn. 1995).
· cites it 2× “Mueller has committed unprofessional and criminal conduct by making harassing phone calls to a client, resulting in respondent pleading guilty to the mis *78 demeanor offense of violating Minn.Stat. § 609.79; and WHEREAS, the Director and respondent have entered into a…”
State v. Pegelow, 809 N.W.2d 245 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “" Minn.Stat. § 609.79, subd. 1(1)(b), (c) (1992).”
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.