On Oct. 7, a Minneapolis jury found an HIV-positive man guilty of first-degree assault for engaging in unprotected anal sex with an unnamed partner back in 2009. The kicker here is that the man being convicted, 30-year-old Daniel James Rick, did disclose his HIV status beforehand and the unnamed partner wanted to have unprotected sex anyway. When the partner later tested positive, he apparently decided that it was Rick's fault and that their act of consensual sex was assault.
The jury convicted Rick on a technicality in a 16-year-old Minnesota statute, 609.2241, which states that:
(1) sexual penetration with another person without having first informed the other person that the person has a communicable disease;View Full Article
Comment by: Dr. Brian
Fri., Feb. 3, 2012 at 12:31 pm EST
The judge should have explained the law as it is cited above: (1) concerns sexual transmission, (2) concerns organ, blood, sperm & tissue DONATIONS - NOT sexual transmission, and (3) concerns transmission by nonsterile syringe. The HIV transmission occurred during sex, NOT through going to a sperm bank, blood bank or any other DONATED tissue - therefore ONLY (1) is applicable and the defendant is NOT guilty as disclosure did occur. The judge was wrong to allow this finding to stand and it calls into question the judge's ability to correctly read the law. The defendant's attorney is also at fault for not requesting the judge explain the law to the jury, specifically that (2) is NOT applicable in cases of sexual transmission. The decision will probably be reversed on appeal, at which time the defendant will have grounds for a civil suit against the court - all because the judge was incapable of reading and understanding the basic English found in the law.
Comment by: Informed
Wed., Oct. 26, 2011 at 5:45 pm EDT
What this article doesn't say is the "unnamed" "victim" twice (yes 2 times) once during direct examination and once again during cross examination admitted to being HIV positive himself and NOT informing Mr. Rick. THAT is clearly a violation of the statute! He did exactly what he tried to claim Mr. Rick did. How do I know? I sat through the trial. Funny how there was no outcry from Freeman or the prosecuting attorney to arrest this "victim" for violating the law! Seems Hennepin County picks and chooses who to apply the law to.
(Please note: Your name and comment will be public, and may even show up in
Internet search results. Be careful when providing personal information! Before
adding your comment, please read TheBody.com's Comment Policy