Minnesota Supreme Court: Domestic abuse can apply to former partners

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled this week that even if a person is no longer in a romantic or sexual relationship with their partner, they can still be charged with domestic assault if they attack them.

Edgard Francisco Talave Latino of Litchfield, Minn., was sentenced to four years in prison after he was convicted of first-degree burglary, third-degree sexual contact and domestic assault in Meeker County District Court in 2023. He appealed the domestic assault conviction on the grounds that he and his partner were no longer in a relationship when he broke into her apartment and raped her.

The Supreme Court decision, written by Justice Anne McKeig, considers the language of Minnesota’s legal statute on who can be charged with misdemeanor domestic assault. That statute incorporates the definition of “family or household members” from the state’s civil Domestic Abuse Act.

It includes spouses and former spouses, parents, children, blood relatives, people who live together or have lived together, people who have children together, men who are the alleged father of pregnant women and “persons involved in a significant romantic relationship.”

Latino narrowed in on that final definition. He argued that because it clearly uses the present tense — “involved in” — he could not be considered a family or household member since he and the victim were not in an active relationship at the time of the attack.

The court ruled that while Latino’s interpretation of the language was not the only reasonable interpretation, the statutory language was unclear.

In her opinion, McKeig explains how the court dug through the history of the Domestic Abuse Act’s creation and how its language was meant to be interpreted. She zeroes in on recordings of the Senate Judiciary Committee from March 28, 1995.

The recordings include discussions that committee members had for several minutes over the phrasing of significant romantic relationships.

“The committee made several grammatical changes to the statute during this hearing that suggest ‘persons involved in a significant romantic or sexual relationship’ is meant to incorporate both ongoing and certain former relationships,” McKeig writes.

Initially the clause read, “persons who have had a significant relationship,” but, in the mirror argument of Latino’s case, legislators realized that language could imply that only former relationships could be considered in domestic abuse cases.

The lawmakers considered several other options for the statutory language, which McKeig places in a footnote. Those options included “persons who have had a significant romantic or sexual relationship,” “persons who have or have had a significant romantic or sexual relationship” and “persons who currently have or had in the past a significant romantic or sexual relationship.”

Other options were “persons who were involved in the past,” and “persons involved in a significant romantic or sexual relationship.”

The committee ultimately landed on “involved in” to describe these relationships because “normally the present tense includes any other tense.”

The Supreme Court argues that this hearing shows that, legislatively, the intent was for the statute to include “both present and former significant romantic or sexual relationships.”

One of the other key goals of the Senate Judiciary Committee was extending domestic abuse protections to dating partners, not just spouses or partners who live together. While that language was once again in the present tense with “dating partners” the Supreme Court points out that because the Domestic Abuse Act protects current and former spouses, it would make sense that it also protects current and former dating partners.

Just as importantly, McKeig writes, if the court were to rule in Latino’s favor, it would set a treacherous precedent. She says it “would allow an individual to terminate a significant relationship and then immediately assault their former partner while evading punishment for domestic assault.”

Still, the opinion notes that not every former sexual or romantic relationship will fit this statute. So the court created a four-pronged determination for district courts to use to determine whether a former relationship fits a domestic assault charge: the duration and type of the relationship; frequency of interaction between the parties, and, if the relationship is over, how long since it ended.

The court then applied those four factors to determine whether they fit Latino’s relationship with the woman he raped. It determined that Latino and his partner had dated for about 18 months and had “a significant romantic and sexual, non-exclusive relationship,” including communications with each other’s families.

In addition, the court said the two had interacted frequently on their phones, and Latino had spent many nights each week at his partner’s apartment. It also said that only days had passed since the relationship had ended.

In upholding Latino’s conviction, the court writes that the state proved he and his victim “were involved in a significant romantic or sexual relationship as required by the statute.”

Joining McKeig in her opinion were Chief Justice Natalie Hudson and Justices Gordon Moore, Karl Procaccini, Paul Thissen and Theodora Gaïtas. Justice Sarah Hennesy did not participate in the case.