Supreme Court reinstates Brown County conviction
May 8—The Minnesota Supreme Court has reinstated the conviction of a Springfield man who tried to lure a girl to meet him in the middle of the night.
A Brown County District judge found Michael James Boss, now 52, guilty of gross misdemeanor contributing for the need for child protection or services in August 2019.
In 2017 court documents say Boss sent candy to a 10-year-old he knows along with a note including a map asking the girl to meet him at an abandoned property at midnight.
The girl did not go and instead gave the note to her guardian. She also then told her guardian that Boss had previously told her he wanted to marry her and tried to give her a ring made out of string.
Boss reportedly told a Brown County Human Services worker he was trying to adopt the girl and believed God had a plan for them to later be married.
Boss' attorney argued the girl was never actually in danger and no inappropriate contact actually occurred.
Judge Robert Docherty found Boss' actions did violate the law that says: "Any person who by act, word, or omission encourages, causes or contributes to the need for protection or services is guilty of a gross misdemeanor."
That law is commonly used in child neglect and runaway cases but can be applied to a variety of other cases involving juveniles.
Docherty sentenced Boss to 90 days in jail and probation, with a possibility for more jail time for any probation violation.
Last year the Minnesota Court of Appeals reduced the charge to attempted contributing for the need for child protection or services.
The appellate judges ruled: "Even when an offender encourages a child's need for protection or services, a criminal conviction requires that the child must actually be in need of protection or services."
Both Boss' attorneys and attorneys for Brown County filed appeals to the Minnesota Supreme Court, arguing respectively that the conviction should either be fully dismissed or reinstated.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday reversed the Court of Appeals decision. The justices agreed with the Brown County judge that protection or services do not need to be actually rendered if a defendant encourages an act that would create the need for such services.
The new ruling states: "Although we agree with the Court of Appeals that 'encourage' encompasses acts even when the child does not follow the encouragement, we disagree with the Court of Appeals' conclusion that the state must prove that actual services were needed."
