The Minnesota Supreme Court issued an opinion July 17, 2024, affirming a conviction for second-degree criminal sexual conduct and clarifying that Minnesota law prohibits an actor's use of an object to make contact with a complainant's intimate parts.

In *Sean Michael Wocelka v. State of Minnesota*, the court addressed whether Minnesota Statutes section 609.343, subdivision 1 (2020), applies when an object is used to make intimate contact. The case centered on the statutory definition of "sexual contact" under Minnesota Statutes section 609.341, subdivision 11(a)(i) (2022), which defines the term as "the intentional touching by the actor of the complainant's intimate parts."

Following a jury trial, the district court convicted Sean Michael Wocelka of second-degree criminal sexual conduct under Minnesota Statutes section 609.343, subdivision 1(a) (2020). This provision criminalizes sexual contact with a complainant under 13 years old when the actor is more than 36 months older than the victim.

Wocelka petitioned for postconviction relief, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction because his conduct did not meet the statutory definition of sexual contact. His challenge focused on whether the use of an object could constitute "touching by the actor" under the statute's language.

Justice Thissen authored the opinion for the court, with Justices McKeig, Chutich, and Moore concurring. Justice Hennesy took no part in the decision. The court's syllabus states definitively that "Minnesota Statutes section 609.343, subdivision 1 (2020), prohibits an actor's use of an object to make contact with a complainant's intimate parts."

The case required the court to interpret the meaning of "sexual contact" as defined in state law. The statutory definition requires "intentional touching by the actor of the complainant's intimate parts." Wocelka's legal challenge hinged on whether conduct involving an object could satisfy this definition.

The Minnesota Supreme Court's interpretation expands the scope of what constitutes criminal sexual contact under state law. By ruling that object use falls within the statutory prohibition, the court rejected a narrow reading that would require direct skin-to-skin contact between the actor and victim.

This interpretation aligns with the legislature's intent to provide comprehensive protection against sexual offenses, particularly those involving minors. The second-degree criminal sexual conduct statute specifically targets cases where the victim is under 13 years old and the perpetrator is significantly older, reflecting Minnesota's commitment to protecting vulnerable children.

The court's decision provides important guidance for prosecutors, defense attorneys, and trial courts handling similar cases. The ruling establishes clear precedent that objects used to make intimate contact fall within Minnesota's criminal sexual conduct prohibitions.

Wocelka was represented by Chief Appellate Public Defender Cathryn Middlebrook and Assistant Public Defender Davi E. Axelson from Saint Paul. The state was represented by Attorney General Keith Ellison, Steele County Attorney Robert J. Jarrett, and Assistant Steele County Attorney Julia A. Forbes from Owatonna.

The case originated in Steele County, where the initial prosecution took place before reaching the Minnesota Supreme Court on appeal. The court's affirmation of the conviction means Wocelka's postconviction petition was unsuccessful.

Minnesota's criminal sexual conduct statutes are among the most comprehensive in the nation, with multiple degrees of offenses based on factors including the victim's age, the relationship between parties, and the nature of the conduct. The statutes are designed to address various forms of sexual offenses while providing clear guidance to courts and practitioners.

The court's interpretation in *Wocelka* reflects broader trends in criminal law toward expansive readings of sexual offense statutes. Courts nationwide have increasingly recognized that sexual crimes can involve various forms of contact beyond traditional definitions.

This decision will likely influence how prosecutors charge similar cases and how defense attorneys approach challenges to sexual contact allegations. The ruling eliminates potential loopholes that defendants might have exploited to argue that object use falls outside statutory prohibitions.

For practitioners handling criminal sexual conduct cases in Minnesota, the *Wocelka* decision provides clear guidance on the scope of prohibited conduct. The ruling confirms that Minnesota's sexual contact definition encompasses a broad range of behaviors intended to harm victims.

The case also demonstrates the Minnesota Supreme Court's willingness to interpret criminal statutes in ways that protect victims, particularly children. By affirming the conviction and clarifying the law's scope, the court reinforced Minnesota's strong stance against sexual offenses involving minors.

Legal observers note that this interpretation aligns with victim advocacy goals while maintaining clear statutory boundaries for criminal liability. The decision provides certainty for future prosecutions while ensuring that technical interpretations cannot undermine protection for vulnerable populations.