North Dakota Century Code

N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-20-01 (2026)

General provisions

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ND-LEGndlegis.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In sections 12.1-20-03 through 12.1-20-08:

1. When criminality depends on a child being below the age of fifteen, it is no defense that the actor did not know the child's age, or reasonably believed the child to be older than fourteen.

2. When criminality depends on the victim being a minor, it is an affirmative defense that the actor reasonably believed the victim to be an adult.

3. When criminality depends on the victim being a minor fifteen years of age or older, the actor is guilty of an offense only if the actor is at least three years older than the minor.

4. When criminality depends on the victim being below the age of fifteen, and the actor is a minor, the actor is guilty of an offense only if the actor is at least three years older than the victim.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 19 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2022 · leading case: Klein v. Larson, 2006 ND 236 (N.D. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Klein v. Larson, 2006 ND 236 (N.D. 2006). · cites it 12× “Under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-01(2), there is an affirmative defense to the crime of corruption of a minor if the actor reasonably believed the victim to be an adult.”

State v. Tibor, 373 N.W.2d 877 (N.D. 1985). · cites it 13× “Tibor made a motion supported by affidavit and brief for dismissal on the ground his prosecution was barred by NDCC § 12.1-20-01(3) because the alleged offense had not been timely reported.”

State v. Flatt, 2007 ND 98 (N.D. 2007). · cites it 12× “After the effective date of the 2005 legislative amendments, the Legislature added the age-in-relation-to-the-victim language to N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-01, the general provisions governing the sex crimes chapter.”

State v. Vandermeer, 2014 ND 46 (N.D. 2014). · cites it 8× “We also conclude the district court properly excluded Vandermeer’s mistake of age defense and properly applied N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-01(1). I [¶2] Vandermeer was charged with gross sexual imposition with a person less than fifteen years old.”

Interest of L.D.M., 2011 ND 25 (N.D. 2011). · cites it 10× “See N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-01(2) (applying “[w]hen criminality depends on the victim being a minor”).”

United States v. Wilson, 66 M.J. 39 (C.A.A.F. 2008). · cites it 2× “§ 30-9-11 (West 2007); N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-20-01 (2007); Ohio Rev.”

State v. Klem, 438 N.W.2d 798 (N.D. 1989). · cites it 4× “Prompt reporting requirement Section 12.1-20-01, N.D.C.C., previously provided that prosecutions for various sex offenses involving minor victims could not be maintained "unless the alleged offense was brought to the notice of public authority within three months after a parent,…”

State v. Ford, 377 N.W.2d 125 (N.D. 1985). · cites it 6× “On appeal, Ford has raised two issues: (1) Whether prosecution should have been barred under Section 12.1-20-01(3), N.D.C.C., because the offense was not timely reported; and (2) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant Ford’s motion for a new trial.”

State v. Gutsche, 405 N.W.2d 295 (N.D. 1987). · cites it 16× “1-20-01(3), N.D.C.C. Section 12.1-20-01(3), N.D. C.C.”

State v. Boespflug, 793 N.W.2d 774 (N.D. 2011). · cites it 10× “See N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-01(2) (applying “[w]hen criminality depends on the victim being a minor”).”

Fleming, Mark Alexander, 455 S.W.3d 577 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). “2d at 251 (age 13); N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-20-01 (age 15); Ohio Rev.”

Van Grinsven v. G.R.H., 711 N.W.2d 587 (N.D. 2006). · cites it 2× “The 2005 Legislative assembly enacted N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-01(3), which limits criminality based on age for most sex crimes: "When criminality depends on the victim being a minor, the actor is guilty of an offense only if the actor is at least four years older than the minor.”

Show all 19 citing cases →

— N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-20-01(1) — 2 cases

State v. Vandermeer, 2014 ND 46 (N.D. 2014). “We also conclude the district court properly excluded Vandermeer’s mistake of age defense and properly applied N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-01(1). I [¶2] Vandermeer was charged with gross sexual imposition with a person less than fifteen years old.”

State v. Sapa, 2022 ND 197 (N.D. 2022).

— N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-20-01(2) — 4 cases

Klein v. Larson, 2006 ND 236 (N.D. 2006). “Under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-01(2), there is an affirmative defense to the crime of corruption of a minor if the actor reasonably believed the victim to be an adult.”

Interest of L.D.M., 2011 ND 25 (N.D. 2011). “See N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-01(2) (applying “[w]hen criminality depends on the victim being a minor”).”

State v. Yanez, 716 A.2d 759 (R.I. 1998).

State v. Boespflug, 793 N.W.2d 774 (N.D. 2011). “See N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-01(2) (applying “[w]hen criminality depends on the victim being a minor”).”

— N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-20-01(3) — 9 cases

State v. Tibor, 373 N.W.2d 877 (N.D. 1985). “Tibor made a motion supported by affidavit and brief for dismissal on the ground his prosecution was barred by NDCC § 12.1-20-01(3) because the alleged offense had not been timely reported.”

State v. Flatt, 2007 ND 98 (N.D. 2007). “After the effective date of the 2005 legislative amendments, the Legislature added the age-in-relation-to-the-victim language to N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-01, the general provisions governing the sex crimes chapter.”

Interest of L.D.M., 2011 ND 25 (N.D. 2011). “See N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-01(2) (applying “[w]hen criminality depends on the victim being a minor”).”

State v. Ford, 377 N.W.2d 125 (N.D. 1985). “On appeal, Ford has raised two issues: (1) Whether prosecution should have been barred under Section 12.1-20-01(3), N.D.C.C., because the offense was not timely reported; and (2) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant Ford’s motion for a new trial.”

— N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-20-01(4) — 1 case

State v. Gutsche, 405 N.W.2d 295 (N.D. 1987). “1-20-01(3), N.D.C.C. Section 12.1-20-01(3), N.D. C.C.”

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.