Minnesota Supreme Court, 1971

State v. Duggan

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided November 19, 1971 · Knutson, Murphy, Otis, Rogosheske, Hachey

192 N.W.2d 185; 291 Minn. 422; 1971 Minn. LEXIS 1049 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Lais, Jacobowski & Bannigan, for appellant., Warren Spannaus, Attorney General, Daniel A. Klas, Corporation Counsel, and Pierre N. Regnier and Daniel L. Ficker, Assistant Corporation Counsels, for respondent.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1977, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

State v. Bennett (Minn. 1977)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Murphy, Justice.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of violation of St. Paul Legislative Code, § 470.03, which provides:

“No person shall loiter or lurk on the streets, or in a public place, or in a place open to the public, with intent to solicit for the purpose of prostitution or any other act prohibited by law.”

Because the state has failed in its proof to establish the essential element of intent to commit the offense, we reverse. We said in State v. Armstrong, 282 Minn. 39, 42, 162 N. W. 2d 357, 360 (1968):

“* * * Whatever the arguable ambiguity or generality as to the element of ‘lurking’ or ‘loitering,’ there is none whatever as to the element of intent. The element of intent gives meaning to the element of lurking or loitering and is a rational basis for proscribing such acts as harmful conduct. Both elements of the offense must, of course, be proved. The overt act of lurking or loitering, standing alone, is not made punishable by the provisions of the ordinances under which defendant was charged. An unlawful intent, without more, is not made punishable.”

There is no evidence in the record of prior offenses, prior unlawful conduct on the part of defendant, nor of reputation or actual solicitation which would support the conviction. From an examination of the record, it appears that the conviction rests largely upon the suspicion of the arresting officer.

Reversed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.