 
October 3, 2012
Minnesota Appeals Court Reverses HIV Conviction
The conviction of an HIV-positive man accused of
transmitting the virus to another man through unprotected sex was reversed by
the Minnesota Court of Appeals, The Associated Press reports. In a split
decision, the appeals court ruled that the statute used to convict him was
ambiguous. Daniel James Rick was convicted in 2011 of attempted first-degree
assault. The first part of the statute used makes it a crime to knowingly
transfer a communicable disease through “sexual penetration with another
person” without disclosing you have such a disease. The second part makes it
illegal to spread the disease by transferring blood, sperm, organs or tissue,
unless it’s for medical procedures. A jury acquitted Rick under the first part
of the statute because they found he had disclosed his status before having
sex. However, the jury convicted him under the second part of the statute. The court
did not support the state’s position that the legislature “intended to prevent
the spread of disease by criminalizing informed sexual penetration between
consenting adults.”
To read the article, click here.
Search: Daniel James Rick, Criminalization, Minnesota
Scroll down to comment on this story.
Hide comments
Previous Comments:
comments 1 - 3 (of 3 total)
hunter, , 2012-10-08 03:52:25
It as stupid as to convict someone who gave herpes o genital wart... if you go on unprotected sex you must be responsible abuot your own acts...
Here in mexico, the law and the human rights dont obligate yourself to disclose your HIV status.... fait or not you should real "A Brave New Worl" porm Aldous Huxley about haw this exact of laws can severe human free will an responsability fron their acts..
dcnorthrup, Los Angeles, 2012-10-05 04:39:07
OMG,,, our justice system doing something right for a change.. i am happy for you Mr. Rick,,
Richard, uk, 2012-10-04 12:50:56
In a family court in the UK my ex asked for a finding of fact I gave her HIV. It was made by the judge - it was a crazy decision based on speculation and no medical evidence. However, when we launched appeal, and a date given for Royal Court of Justice appearance - they withdrew their defence for the appeal on advice I would guess from Queen's council that it would be overturned. I don't know where it came from, but the law is just not safe
comments 1 - 3 (of 3 total)
[Go to top]
|
