Connect with us

News

Minnesota Supreme Court won’t prosecute HIV-positive gay man

Respondent prosecuted after infecting partner through consensual unprotected sex

Published

on

The Minnesota Supreme Court a ruled a gay HIV-positive man didn't violate the law by infecting his partner through consensual sex.

The Minnesota Supreme Court a ruled a gay HIV-positive man didn’t violate the law by infecting his partner through consensual sex.

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that an HIV-positive gay man didn’t violate a state law prohibiting the transfer of communicable diseases by engaging in consensual unprotected sex with his partner.

In a 16-page decision, the court determined in the case of State of Minnesota v. Rick that Daniel James Rick didn’t commit a felony under Minnesota’s “knowing transfer of a communicable disease” statute by having unprotected sex with a partner after declaring his HIV status.

The court affirmed that the law applies to donation or exchange for value of blood, sperm, organs or tissue, but given Rick’s conduct, there is “insufficient evidence to support respondent’s conviction.”

Christopher Clark, senior staff attorney for Lambda Legal, commended the Minnesota high court for reaching the decision. His organization filed a friend-of-the-court brief along with the American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU Minnesota on behalf of Rick.

“We’re relieved that the Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled in favor of liberty and justice, rejecting the government’s misapplication of its communicable disease law to the facts of this case,” Clark said. “The State should not dictate with whom and how people choose to engage in intimate sexual relations.”

In May 2009, Rick had a sexual relationship with another man of unknown HIV status, identified as D.B. in the court decision, after meeting through a “social website.” They mutually agreed to not use condoms while having sex, although Rick said he disclosed that he was HIV-positive. According to the court decision, Rick either ejaculated inside D.B.’s rectum or outside of and onto D.B.’s body. In October 2009, D.B. tested positive for HIV. The next month, D.B. and Rick had their final sexual encounter in which they engaged in consensual anal intercourse and ejaculated inside each other.

But after the relationship ended, D.B. sought prosecution of Rick under Minnesota’s “knowing transfer of a communicable disease” statute. The state of Minnesota charged Rick with attempted first-degree assault with great bodily harm, which is punishable by up to 20 years in prison. In addition to charging Rick under the provison of that law governing sexual penetration, Minnesota also pursued a conviction under the subdivision governing the medical transfer of blood, sperm, organs, or tissue, which does not contain the verbal disclosure exception.

A jury found Rick not guilty with regard to for sexual penetration, rejecting evidence that Rick didn’t disclose his HIV status. Still, the jury found him guilty under the law designed in the context of medical donations. The jury imposed upon him a sentence of 49 months in prison, but stayed execution of the sentence for five years.

In September, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the conviction. And after the granting review of the case in December, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed that ruling in a decision it made public on Wednesday.

The Supreme Court reached this decision first by examining whether the notion of “transfer” under the communicable-disease statute with regard to medical donations includes the transfer of semen during unprotected sex. The justices determined that the way the law is worded is ambiguous. Then, looking toward the legislative history leading to passage of the bill, the court determined that lawmakers didn’t intend to mean consensual sex when referring to the transfer of semen.

“We acknowledge that the communicable-disease statute presents difficult interpretation issues and that the Legislature may have, in fact, intended something different,” the decision states. “If that is the case, however, it is the Legislature’s prerogative to reexamine the communicable-disease statute and amend it accordingly.”

Gay rights and HIV/AIDS advocates praised the decision as a just way to end the state’s prosecution of an individual for engaging in consensual sex.

Chase Strangio, staff attorney with the ACLU AIDS Project, said it’s “deeply concerning” that a state would persecutive an HIV-positive person for engaging in consensual sex where parties disclosed their HIV status.

“Today’s decision marks an important step in protecting HIV-positive Minnesotans from misapplication of the criminal law,” Strangio said.

Sean Strub, a longtime AIDS activist and founder of POZ Magazine, said the court decision is positive, but he still has concerns.

“The ruling in Minnesota is a good step, but there’s still something creepy about having to celebrate, in 2013, a court ruling that says two consenting adults have the right to have sex with each other,” Strub said.

Strub noted public health statutes have been used in history to discriminate against immigrants, Jews, Chinese, African Americans and migrants in addition to LGBT people. He called on Minnesota to change its law to enable greater clarity.

“People with HIV today seem to be an acceptable focus for fears and biases that only barely mask the racism and homophobia that drive them,” Strub said. “I hope this court decision will inspire the Minnesota legislature to modernize their statute to reflect contemporary science and a respect for the rights of all people, including people with HIV.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Local

Comings & Goings

David Reid named principal at Brownstein

Published

on

David Reid

The Comings & Goings column is about sharing the professional successes of our community. We want to recognize those landing new jobs, new clients for their business, joining boards of organizations and other achievements. Please share your successes with us at [email protected]

The Comings & Goings column also invites LGBTQ+ college students to share their successes with us. If you have been elected to a student government position, gotten an exciting internship, or are graduating and beginning your career with a great job, let us know so we can share your success. 

Congratulations to David Reid on his new position as Principal, Public Policy, with Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck. Upon being named to the position, he said, “I am proud to be part of this inaugural group of principals as the firm launches it new ‘principal, public policy’ title.”

Reid is a political strategist and operative. He is a prolific fundraiser, and skilled advocate for legislative and appropriations goals. He is deeply embedded in Democratic politics, drawing on his personal network on the Hill, in governors’ administrations, and throughout the business community, to build coalitions that drive policy successes for clients. His work includes leading complex public policy efforts related to infrastructure, hospitality, gaming, health care, technology, telecommunications, and arts and entertainment.

Reid has extensive political finance experience. He leads Brownstein’s bipartisan political operation each cycle with Republican and Democratic congressional and national campaign committees and candidates. Reid is an active member of Brownstein’s pro-bono committee and co-leads the firm’s LGBT+ Employee Resource Group.

He serves as a Deputy National Finance Chair of the Democratic National Committee and is a member of the Finance Committee of the Democratic Governors Association, where he previously served as the Deputy Finance Director.

Prior to joining Brownstein, Reid served as the Washington D.C. and PAC finance director at Hillary for America. He worked as the mid-Atlantic finance director, for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and ran the political finance operation of a Fortune 50 global health care company.

Among his many outside involvements, Reid serves on the executive committee of the One Victory, and LGBTQ Victory Institute board, the governing bodies of the LGBTQ Victory Fund and Institute; and is a member of the board for Q Street. 

Congratulations also to Yesenia Alvarado Henninger of Helion Energy, president; Abigail Harris of Honeywell; Alex Catanese of American Bankers Association; Stu Malec, secretary; Brendan Neal, treasurer; Brownstein’s David Reid; Amazon’s Suzanne Beall; Lowe’s’ Rob Curis; andCornerstone’s Christian Walker. Their positions have now been confirmed by the Q Street Board of Directors. 

Continue Reading

District of Columbia

D.C. pays $500,000 to settle lawsuit brought by gay Corrections Dept. employee

Alleged years of verbal harassment, slurs, intimidation

Published

on

Deon Jones (Photo courtesy of the ACLU)

The D.C. government on Feb. 5 agreed to pay $500,000 to a gay D.C. Department of Corrections officer as a settlement to a lawsuit the officer filed in 2021 alleging he was subjected  to years of discrimination at his job because of his sexual orientation, according to a statement released by the American Civil Liberties Union of D.C.

The statement says the lawsuit, filed on behalf of Sgt. Deon Jones by the ACLU of D.C. and the law firm WilmerHale, alleged that the Department of Corrections, including supervisors and co-workers, “subjected Sgt. Jones to discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment because of his identity as a gay man, in violation of the D.C. Human Rights Act.”

Daniel Gleick, a spokesperson for D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, said the mayor’s office would have no comment on the lawsuit settlement. The Washington Blade couldn’t immediately reach a spokesperson for the Office of the D.C. Attorney General, which represents the city against lawsuits.

Bowser and her high-level D.C. government appointees, including Japer Bowles, director of the Mayor’s Office of LGBTQ Affairs, have spoken out against LGBTQ-related discrimination.   

“Jones, now a 28-year veteran of the Department and nearing retirement, faced years of verbal abuse and harassment from coworkers and incarcerated people alike, including anti-gay slurs, threats, and degrading treatment,”  the ACLU’s statement says.

“The prolonged mistreatment took a severe toll on Jones’s mental health, and he experienced depression, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and 15 anxiety attacks in 2021 alone,” it says.

“For years, I showed up to do my job with professionalism and pride, only to be targeted because of who I am,” Jones says in the ACLU  statement. “This settlement affirms that my pain mattered – and that creating hostile workplaces has real consequences,” he said.  

He added, “For anyone who is LGBTQ or living with a disability and facing workplace discrimination or retaliation, know this: you are not powerless. You have rights. And when you stand up, you can achieve justice.”

The settlement agreement, a link to which the ACLU provided in its statement announcing the settlement, states that plaintiff Jones agrees, among other things, that “neither the Parties’ agreement, nor the District’s offer to settle the case, shall in any way be construed as an admission by the District that it or any of its current or former employees, acted wrongfully with respect to Plaintiff or any other person, or that Plaintiff has any rights.”

Scott Michelman, the D.C. ACLU’s legal director said that type of disclaimer is typical for parties that agree to settle a lawsuit like this.

“But actions speak louder than words,” he told the Blade. “The fact that they are paying our client a half million dollars for the pervasive and really brutal harassment that he suffered on the basis of his identity for years is much more telling than their disclaimer itself,” he said.

The settlement agreement also says Jones would be required, as a condition for accepting the agreement, to resign permanently from his job at the Department of Corrections. Michelman said Jones has been on leave from work for a period of time, but he did not know how long.  Jones couldn’t immediately be reached for comment.

“This is really something that makes sense on both sides,” Michelman said of the resignation requirements. “The environment had become so toxic the way he had been treated on multiple levels made it difficult to see how he could return to work there.”

Continue Reading

Virginia

Spanberger signs bill that paves way for marriage amendment repeal referendum

Proposal passed in two successive General Assembly sessions

Published

on

(Bigstock photo)

Virginians this year will vote on whether to repeal a state constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger on Friday signed state Del. Laura Jane Cohen (D-Fairfax County)’s House Bill 612, which finalized the referendum’s language.

The ballot question that voters will consider on Election Day is below:

Question: Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to: (i) remove the ban on same-sex marriage; (ii) affirm that two adults may marry regardless of sex, gender, or race; and (iii) require all legally valid marriages to be treated equally under the law?

Voters in 2006 approved the Marshall-Newman Amendment.

Same-sex couples have been able to legally marry in Virginia since 2014. Former Gov. Glenn Youngkin, who is a Republican, in 2024 signed a bill that codified marriage equality in state law.

Two successive legislatures must approve a proposed constitutional amendment before it can go to the ballot.

A resolution to repeal the Marshall-Newman Amendment passed in the General Assembly in 2025. Lawmakers once again approved it last month.

“20 years after Virginia added a ban on same-sex marriage to our Constitution, we finally have the chance to right that wrong,” wrote Equality Virginia Executive Director Narissa Rahaman on Friday in a message to her group’s supporters.

Virginians this year will also consider proposed constitutional amendments that would guarantee reproductive rights and restore voting rights to convicted felons who have completed their sentences.

Continue Reading

Popular