In a recent ruling, the Minnesota Court of Appeals addressed a crucial question concerning Domestic Abuse No-Contact Orders (Dancos): Can a DANCO issued in another state be violated in Minnesota? The court’s decision in State v. Walton provides clarity for both law enforcement and individuals navigating interstate legal complexities related to DANCOs.
The Walton case arose from an incident at the Mall of America. Police responded to a report of a physical altercation and encountered a defendant who was subject to a Rhode Island DANCO. He was subsequently arrested and charged with felony violation of a DANCO in Minnesota, based on the out-of-state order. This charge stemmed from Minnesota law which elevates a DANCO violation to a felony if the offender has two or more prior qualified domestic-violence-related offenses within the preceding ten years.
During the trial, Walton waived his right to a jury, leaving the verdict to the judge. The district court found him guilty. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, not on the grounds that out-of-state DANCOs are unenforceable, but due to a lack of sufficient evidence presented by the prosecution.
The appellate court affirmed that DANCOs from other states can indeed be enforced in Minnesota. However, they emphasized a critical condition: the prosecution must demonstrate that the out-of-state DANCO was issued in proceedings consistent with Minnesota law. Specifically, the order must relate to at least one of the offenses listed under Minnesota Statute section 629.75, subdivision 1(a). In the Walton case, the prosecution failed to provide evidence regarding the nature of the Rhode Island proceeding that led to the DANCO. This evidentiary gap was the basis for the reversal.
This ruling underscores a vital principle in Minnesota law: when cases rely on legal instruments from other states, the prosecution bears the burden of proving their validity and relevance under Minnesota statutes. Minnesota courts will carefully scrutinize out-of-state orders to ensure they align with Minnesota’s legal framework. Even when an event occurs out of state, its legal implications within Minnesota are subject to Minnesota’s procedural and evidentiary standards.
For cases involving DANCO violations, this means prosecutors cannot simply present an out-of-state order and assume automatic enforceability. They must delve into the specifics of the order’s origin, demonstrating that it was issued in a manner consistent with Minnesota law concerning domestic abuse and no-contact orders. While proving a DANCO violation might seem straightforward when individuals subject to such orders are found in contact, the Walton decision serves as a reminder of the necessary legal groundwork, particularly when interstate elements are involved. It reinforces the importance of due process and the prosecution’s responsibility to meet its burden of proof, especially in cases concerning DANCOs originating outside of Minnesota.
