The Minnesota law that bars advising or encouraging suicide violates the U.S. Constitution's free-speech protections, the state Court of Appeals ruled Monday in an unpublished opinion involving a Florida group called Final Exit Network Inc.
The ruling invalidates charges against two Final Exit members of advising and encouraging suicide in the 2007 death of an Apple Valley woman, but let stand charges that they aided and abetted in her death.
Still, Final Exit lawyer Robert Rivas called Monday's ruling a "grand slam" for his clients. It comes at a time when another case involving a Faribault man convicted of assisting suicide via the Internet is likely to go before the state Supreme Court.
In its 18-page ruling, a three-judge panel of the Appeals Court said that the law against encouraging suicide "chills a significant amount of protected speech that does not bear a necessary relationship" to the state's goal of preventing suicide.
In a footnote, the court said the term "encourages" in the law "plausibly encompasses urging" suicide, but it is "not necessarily" the same as causing someone to commit suicide through "undue influence or distress." The latter probably would not be protected speech, the court said.
The court remanded the case, meaning that it sent a portion back to Dakota County District Court. It ruled that the aiding-and-abetting charges could stand because Final Exit went beyond advising to assisting. Thus, a trial of the Final Exit members on the remaining charges could proceed, but Rivas said he expects Dakota County prosecutors to appeal Monday's ruling to the state Supreme Court.
County Attorney James Backstrom's office didn't return a call seeking comment Monday.
The state Supreme Court is not required to hear the Final Exit case, but the case involving a Faribault man convicted of assisting two suicides is pending before it. In that case, which involves the same set of state laws about assisted suicide, William Melchert-Dinkel, an ex-nurse, was convicted in 2011 of "advising and encouraging" the suicides of a man in England and a teenager in Canada. The Court of Appeals determined last year that Melchert-Dinkel's speech wasn't protected because he was engaging in predatory behavior by going into chat rooms and making suicide "pacts" with vulnerable strangers.