Note
50 Mitchell Hamline L. Rev. 844 (2024)

Minnesota’s Criminalization of Assisted Suicide: A Failure to Protect Minnesota Citizens’ Right to Free Speech

By
Haley M. Bauman

This Note contains explicit depictions and discussions of suicide and suicide methods. Such discussions may be triggering and distressing for some readers. Reader discretion is advised.

The First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits. The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it.

Suicide is a difficult subject matter, and it becomes even more so when one person assists another in committing suicide. Assisted suicide, broadly defined, is “suicide carried out by someone with assistance from another person.” Assisted suicide is illegal in almost every U.S. jurisdiction. However, precise definitions and accompanying penalties vary from state to state. Some jurisdictions have categorized assisted suicide as a form of homicide. In others, the person who assisted in the suicide is tried as an accessory to homicide. Still others, including Minnesota, have enacted statutes specifically committed to criminalizing assisted suicide as a distinct crime.

While it is not unusual for states to prohibit assisted suicide, Minnesota is unique in the fact that it has extended its prohibition to mere speech. Minnesota appellate courts have repeatedly held that mere speech that “assists” in another’s suicide is encompassed in the state’s prohibition against assisted suicide.

Section III.A of this Note analyzes the history of Minnesota’s criminalization of assisted suicide by exploring the multiple amendments of Minnesota Statutes section 609.215, followed by Section III.B, which discusses recent examples of how Minnesota courts have applied this statutory language to physical conduct. This Note then discusses judicial expansion of the assisted suicide prohibition to mere speech by examining the impact of State v. Melchert-Dinkel and State v. Final Exit Network, Inc.