First degree is a collection of distinct legal theories

Minnesota does not define first-degree criminal sexual conduct with a single sentence such as “nonconsensual intercourse.” Section 609.342 is a detailed statute with separate subdivisions for an adult complainant and a complainant under 18. Each subdivision contains alternatives. The prosecution must select a legally valid theory and prove the facts required by it.

That structure matters in practice. Evidence sufficient for a lesser degree may not prove first degree. Proof of penetration does not by itself establish fear of imminent great bodily harm. Proof that a complainant was injured does not by itself establish coercion, force, or incapacity. Proof of an age difference does not by itself establish a current or recent position of authority. The aggravating circumstance is not background; it is part of the charged offense.

The alleged date can change the governing law

Criminal liability is ordinarily measured under the statute in effect when the alleged conduct occurred. Minnesota substantially amended its criminal-sexual-conduct laws in 2021, including the definitions of consent, coercion, force, and mental incapacitation and the organization of the degrees. A complaint alleging a broad date range that crosses an amendment may require special attention to notice, jury instructions, unanimity, and which version of the law applies to which alleged act.

The Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Khalil, 956 N.W.2d 627, 629 (Minn. 2021), interpreted the former definition of “mentally incapacitated.” Under that former wording, the Court held the definition “does not include a person who is voluntarily intoxicated by alcohol.” Read the official opinion. The Legislature then amended the law. The current definition is broader and expressly includes a person who, because of substances, is incapable of consenting or appreciating, understanding, or controlling the person’s conduct. Khalil remains important legal history, but quoting it without explaining the amendment misstates current law.

Penetration is different from sexual contact

Most first-degree theories require “sexual penetration.” The statutory definition is broader than intercourse and includes several forms of oral, anal, genital, and object penetration. Intrusion may be slight, and ejaculation is not required. The exact alleged act still matters because the State must prove an act within the definition and connect the accused to it.

The child-victim subdivision also covers one particular category of “sexual contact with a person under 14.” It does not import every type of contact into first degree. The referenced definition in section 609.341, subdivision 11(c), addresses intentional touching of bare genitals or the anal opening by bare genitals or an anal opening, when committed with sexual or aggressive intent. Other alleged contact may fall under second-degree or another criminal-sexual-conduct provision, depending on the facts.

The prosecution bears the burden throughout

The accused does not have to prove innocence, explain every inconsistency, or establish a motive for an accusation. The State must prove identity, the prohibited sexual act, the required mental state, and the charged aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt. Minnesota law does not require corroboration of a complainant’s testimony, but that rule does not reduce the burden of proof. Jurors must evaluate credibility and all evidence under the same reasonable-doubt standard used in other criminal cases.

The statutory definitions do much of the legal work

Minn. Stat. § 609.341 (2026) supplies definitions used across Minnesota’s criminal-sexual-conduct statutes. Everyday usage is not always the legal meaning. A sound case analysis applies the statutory wording in effect on the alleged date.

Consent

Consent means words or overt actions indicating a freely given present agreement to perform a particular sexual act with the actor. A current or former relationship does not establish consent. Failure to resist does not establish consent. Consent to one act does not necessarily establish consent to another, and earlier consent does not automatically continue. A person who is mentally incapacitated or physically helpless cannot consent under the statutory definition.

When consent is legally available as an issue, the relevant inquiry is concrete: what was communicated, by whom, about which act, and at what time? Complete conversations, conduct before and after the encounter, contemporaneous messages, witness observations, and the parties’ accounts can all bear on that question. Stereotypes about how a person “should” act after an assault or how a falsely accused person “should” respond are poor substitutes for evidence.

Force

“Force” has two components in the current definition. One is the infliction of bodily harm. The other is the attempted or threatened infliction of bodily harm, or commission or threat of another crime, causing the complainant reasonably to believe the actor has the present ability to carry it out. The first-degree statute uses those components differently in different clauses. Some clauses require force plus another fact; one clause reaches penetration accomplished by the bodily-harm component of force itself.

Coercion

Coercion includes words or circumstances causing reasonable fear of bodily harm to the complainant or another person, or confinement or superior size or strength used to accomplish the sexual act. The statute says proof of a specific act or threat is not required. That does not make coercion automatic. The State must prove circumstances within the definition and a connection between those circumstances and the sexual act.

Reasonable fear of imminent great bodily harm

This aggravating circumstance is more specific than generalized discomfort, regret, or fear of some future consequence. “Great bodily harm” is a defined level of injury involving a high probability of death, serious permanent disfigurement, permanent or protracted loss or impairment of bodily function, or other serious bodily harm. “Imminent” focuses on an impending harm. The complainant’s account, words or conduct attributed to the accused, physical setting, isolation, size disparity, prior violence, weapons, and surrounding circumstances may all be relevant.

Personal injury

For these statutes, personal injury includes bodily harm, severe mental anguish, or pregnancy. Bodily harm includes physical pain or injury, illness, or impairment of physical condition. The prosecution must prove the injury and the statutory connection to the offense. Medical records may be important, but visible injury is not required for every first-degree theory and the absence of injury does not establish consent.

“Severe mental anguish” is not synonymous with every emotional response. Its application depends on the evidence and governing instructions. Counseling records, statements, testimony, symptoms, timing, and alternate causes may become relevant, subject to privilege, privacy, admissibility, and in-camera-review rules.

Mentally impaired, mentally incapacitated, and physically helpless

These are separate legal conditions. “Mentally impaired” concerns impaired intelligence or a substantial psychiatric disorder that deprives a person of sufficient judgment to give reasoned consent. The current “mentally incapacitated” definition covers either a substance administered without the person’s agreement that causes the required lack of judgment, or influence from substances to the degree the person is incapable of consenting or incapable of appreciating, understanding, or controlling the person’s conduct.

“Physically helpless” includes being asleep or unconscious, being unable to withhold or withdraw consent because of a physical condition, or being unable to communicate nonconsent when the condition is known or reasonably should be known to the actor. Capacity is not decided by a blood-alcohol number alone. Toxicology, tolerance, timing, video, speech, movement, memory, witness observations, and expert testimony may bear on whether the statutory threshold was met and what the accused knew or had reason to know.

Significant relationship and position of authority

A “significant relationship” is a defined family or household relationship, not simply a relationship that felt important. It includes a parent, stepparent, guardian, specified relatives, certain adult co-residents, and an adult involved in a significant romantic or sexual relationship with the complainant’s parent.

A “current or recent position of authority” includes a parent or person acting in a parent’s place and a person charged with a duty or responsibility for the health, welfare, or supervision of a minor. The responsibility can be brief. For the current definition, the position may exist at the time of the act or within the preceding 120 days. The evidence should establish the actual duty and timing rather than rely on a title such as coach, teacher, supervisor, family friend, or babysitter.

First-degree allegations involving an adult complainant

Subdivision 1 of section 609.342 addresses sexual penetration with another person under five principal alternatives. The complaint may charge more than one alternative, but each has its own factual requirements.

Reasonable fear of imminent great bodily harm

The first alternative applies when circumstances existing at the time cause the complainant to have a reasonable fear of imminent great bodily harm. It does not require a completed great-bodily-harm injury. The State may rely on express threats, conduct, prior acts known to the complainant, the location, restraint, disparity in size or strength, or other immediate circumstances.

Defense analysis asks what created the alleged fear, when it arose, whether it concerned great bodily harm, whether the harm was imminent, and whether the fear was reasonable under the circumstances. Recorded communications, surveillance, witness observations, the physical layout, and statements made close in time may clarify the event. The issue is not whether a lawyer or juror would have reacted identically, but whether the statutory standard is proved.

Dangerous weapon or an object used as one

The second alternative applies when the actor is armed with a dangerous weapon or an article used or fashioned in a manner leading the complainant reasonably to believe it is a dangerous weapon, and the actor uses or threatens to use it to cause submission. Merely having an unrelated object nearby is not necessarily enough. The State must prove the weapon-related conduct and its role in causing submission.

Issues can include whether the object existed, whether it qualified, whether the complainant saw or perceived it, what was said or done, whether the accused possessed it, and whether it was used or threatened for the statutory purpose. Photographs, fingerprints, DNA, body-camera footage, recovery location, chain of custody, and forensic testing may be central.

Personal injury plus coercion, force, or incapacity

The third alternative requires personal injury to the complainant plus at least one additional condition: coercion; the threatened or attempted-harm component of force; or the actor’s knowledge or reason to know that the complainant was mentally impaired, mentally incapacitated, or physically helpless. This is a compound theory. Injury alone is insufficient, and the additional condition alone does not satisfy this particular clause.

Medical findings must be described accurately. A finding may be consistent with more than one mechanism and may not establish when an injury occurred or who caused it. Conversely, many sexual assaults produce no diagnostic injury. The useful inquiry is what the clinician actually observed, the limits of any conclusion, the history supplied, timing, alternative explanations, and whether the evidence proves the charged combination.

Penetration accomplished by inflicting bodily harm

A separate alternative addresses penetration accomplished through the bodily-harm component of force. Because “force” is defined in clauses, the charging document and jury instructions should identify the correct component. The prosecution must prove the infliction of bodily harm and its relationship to accomplishing penetration, not merely an injury noticed at some later time.

Aided or abetted by an accomplice

The accomplice alternative applies when the actor is aided or abetted by one or more accomplices and either force or coercion is used, or an accomplice is armed with and uses or threatens a dangerous weapon to cause submission. Presence at the scene does not automatically make another person an accomplice. The State must prove intentional assistance under Minnesota accomplice-liability principles and the additional sexual-offense facts.

Cases with multiple accused people require individualized analysis. Statements may be admissible against one person but not another. Joint trials can raise confrontation, severance, and spillover-prejudice issues. Phone extractions, videos, location data, and communications may distinguish planning and assistance from mere association or after-the-fact conduct.

First-degree allegations involving a complainant under 18

Subdivision 1a contains the child-victim provisions. Several mirror the fear, weapon, injury, force, and accomplice alternatives described above. Others turn on age, age difference, a position of authority, a significant relationship, or repeated acts. Consent and mistake about age are expressly unavailable for several age-based clauses.

Fear, weapon, injury, accomplice, and force provisions

The first four alternatives generally pair the prohibited sexual act with reasonable fear of imminent great bodily harm; a weapon used or threatened to cause submission; personal injury plus coercion, force, or incapacity; or aid from accomplices combined with force, coercion, or a weapon. Another alternative addresses the infliction-of-bodily-harm component of force. The minor’s age does not eliminate the need to prove the selected aggravating circumstance under these clauses.

Complainant under 14 and actor more than 36 months older

First degree applies when the complainant is under 14 and the actor is more than 36 months older. The State must prove the ages and the prohibited sexual act. Consent and a reasonable mistake about age are not defenses to this clause. Official birth records and precise dates matter; casual statements about school grade or approximate age should not replace proof.

The provision can reach penetration or the narrow under-14 sexual-contact category incorporated from section 609.341, subdivision 11(c). If the allegation is contact rather than penetration, counsel should compare the alleged touching word by word with that definition and examine the evidence of sexual or aggressive intent.

Complainant age 14 or 15, age difference, and authority

Another clause applies when the complainant is 14 or 15, the actor is more than 36 months older, and the actor is in a current or recent position of authority. All three propositions matter. Age difference alone does not prove authority; authority alone does not prove the required age difference. Consent and mistake of age are not defenses under this clause.

The authority inquiry should identify a real health, welfare, or supervisory responsibility and its timing. Employment records, team rosters, school assignments, childcare arrangements, household evidence, policies, communications, and witness testimony may show the scope and duration of responsibility. A social acquaintance with an older person is not automatically a statutory position of authority.

Complainant under 16 and a significant relationship

First degree also applies when the complainant is under 16 and the actor has a statutorily defined significant relationship with the complainant. Consent and mistake about age are not defenses. The alleged relationship must fit the statutory list. Biological, marital, guardianship, co-residence, and parental-relationship evidence may be required.

Significant relationship plus another aggravator

A separate, more detailed clause applies when the complainant is under 16, the actor has a significant relationship, and one of three additional circumstances exists: force or coercion; personal injury; or multiple sexual acts committed over an extended period. The “multiple acts” alternative is not satisfied merely because an account uses plural language. The State must prove multiple qualifying acts and the temporal feature required by the statute.

Broad allegations such as “many times over several years” present difficult but important notice questions. The defense should seek enough factual definition to investigate alibis, residences, custody schedules, travel, school calendars, access, and changes in the alleged relationship. Children may not remember calendar dates precisely, but the accused retains constitutional rights to notice, a fair opportunity to defend, and a unanimous verdict on the charged offense.

Evidence in a first-degree criminal-sexual-conduct case

These cases are often decided through a combination of testimony, medical evidence, digital records, forensic testing, and conduct attributed to the parties. No single category should be treated as automatically decisive. Evidence must be collected, preserved, authenticated, and interpreted within its limits.

Statements and interviews

Investigators may record a complainant’s statement, conduct a child forensic interview, speak with family and friends, and seek an interview of the suspect. The timing, wording, and completeness of each account matter. Summaries can omit uncertainty, corrections, interviewer suggestions, or contextual detail. The defense should obtain the full audio or video, notes, reports, prior statements, and information about conversations before the formal interview.

A suspect may be invited to “clear things up” before learning the accusation’s detail. A recorded denial can help, but speculation, attempts to be agreeable, incomplete memory, or statements taken out of context can be damaging. The right to remain silent and the right to counsel are practical protections. Deleting messages, contacting the complainant, asking others to influence testimony, or violating a no-contact order can create separate problems.

Medical and sexual-assault examination evidence

A sexual-assault examination may document history, collect samples, photograph findings, provide treatment, and preserve clothing or other items. The examiner can testify to observations and qualified opinions. The examination usually cannot determine consent, and many findings are nonspecific. The report should be reviewed alongside photographs, laboratory results, the timing of the examination, intervening activity, and the examiner’s training.

The defense should not assume that no injury means no assault, or that an injury necessarily proves assault. Either oversimplification can fail. The question is what the evidence establishes about the charged act and aggravating circumstance, with appropriate expert explanation when needed.

DNA and biological evidence

DNA may identify a contributor, support contact, or exclude a person from a tested sample. It usually does not answer every contested question. In a consent case, identity or sexual contact may be undisputed while consent is disputed. Transfer, persistence, mixed samples, collection methods, contamination controls, statistical interpretation, and activity-level conclusions should be examined.

Testing can also identify another contributor or reveal that an expected profile was not detected. Absence has meaning only in context: the type of act, condom use, washing, delay, sample location, biological material, laboratory threshold, and collection quality all affect what may be recovered.

Toxicology and capacity

Blood or urine testing may show alcohol or drugs, but a later concentration must be interpreted cautiously. Absorption, elimination, dose, timing, prescription use, tolerance, interactions, and sample type affect conclusions. A toxicologist may estimate a range or discuss expected effects, but individual behavior varies. Video, receipts, messages, location history, witness observations, and the person’s ability to walk, speak, communicate, remember, and make decisions may be as important as a number.

Phones, social media, and location records

Messages can show plans, boundaries, state of mind, disclosure, apology, denial, motive, or continued contact. Complete threads matter. Selected screenshots may omit dates, participants, deleted context, reactions, or messages sent through another service. Native downloads, account returns, device extractions, backups, and metadata may provide a more reliable record.

Location evidence can test arrival times, access, opportunity, travel, and claimed isolation. Cell-site information is not GPS and has limits. Application location, vehicle data, photographs, Wi-Fi records, access-control logs, and surveillance may be more precise. Preservation requests are time-sensitive because businesses routinely overwrite video and logs.

Delayed reporting and post-event conduct

Delayed reporting does not establish that an allegation is false. People delay for many reasons, including fear, trauma, shame, relationships, dependence, or uncertainty. Continued communication or contact also does not necessarily establish consent. At the same time, timing and conduct can be relevant when evaluated without stereotypes. The factfinder should receive the full context, including what was said, what options existed, intervening events, and whether later communications are consistent or inconsistent with either side’s account.

Defense analysis must match the charged clause

There is no universal defense to first-degree criminal sexual conduct. The correct analysis depends on whether identity, the sexual act, consent, age, relationship, force, injury, a weapon, capacity, or another aggravating fact is disputed. More than one issue may be present.

No prohibited penetration or contact

The defense may dispute that any sexual act occurred, that the act met the legal definition, or that the accused committed it. Medical evidence may be neutral. DNA may exclude or fail to identify. A statement may describe touching that does not fall within the first-degree contact definition. The allegation should be compared precisely with the statute rather than relabeled in broad terms.

Consent, when consent is legally available

In an adult case where capacity is not negated and the clause does not make consent legally irrelevant, the defense may contend that words or overt actions showed freely given present agreement to the particular act. The inquiry is act-specific and time-specific. Prior sexual history is generally inadmissible to prove consent, subject to narrow exceptions and required procedures under Minnesota Rule of Evidence 412.

Consent is not a valid defense to the age-based first-degree clauses that expressly foreclose it. Nor can a person consent while mentally incapacitated or physically helpless under the governing definitions. A responsible defense identifies the legal boundary rather than making an argument the statute does not allow.

The aggravating circumstance is not proved

The evidence may support an encounter but not first degree. The defense may challenge whether fear concerned imminent great bodily harm, whether an object was used or threatened to cause submission, whether an injury qualifies and is connected to the act, whether conduct meets the force or coercion definition, or whether another person intentionally aided the offense.

This distinction can affect acquittal, lesser-included-offense instructions, negotiations, and sentencing. It should be addressed early. An undifferentiated claim that “nothing happened” may overlook a strong legal issue about the degree even when some conduct is difficult to dispute.

Capacity and the accused’s knowledge

Under a clause requiring that the actor knew or had reason to know of mental impairment, mental incapacitation, or physical helplessness, both the complainant’s legal condition and the accused’s required awareness deserve separate analysis. Intoxication is not identical to statutory incapacity. Memory loss after an event does not necessarily establish incapacity during it. Conversely, outward behavior may demonstrate a condition the actor reasonably should have recognized.

Toxicology, video, communications, witness observations, expert evidence, and the sequence of events can illuminate both questions. The governing language must come from the statute in effect on the alleged date; reliance on the pre-2021 Khalil definition in a current-law case is an error.

Age, age difference, relationship, or authority is not proved

An age-based case may turn on official dates of birth and whether the difference exceeds 36 months. A relationship clause requires proof of a relationship listed in the definition. An authority clause requires a current or recent supervisory or welfare responsibility. Mistake of age may be legally unavailable, but the State still must prove actual age and every other element.

Identity, misidentification, or attribution

Identity may be disputed in an assault by a stranger, a multi-person event, an online-origin case, or an allegation involving darkness, intoxication, disguise, or a delayed identification. Identification procedures, descriptions, lineup administration, DNA, fingerprints, device ownership, account access, location records, and alternative suspects should be examined.

Digital attribution is not automatic. A message from an account does not alone prove who used the device. Shared passwords, multiple devices, spoofing, deleted context, synced accounts, and extraction limitations may matter. The defense should avoid speculative technical theories but insist that the State prove authorship reliably.

Credibility and reasonable doubt

A case can turn on testimony even without physical evidence. Cross-examination may address materially inconsistent accounts, perception, memory, bias, motive, prior statements, external influence, or facts contradicted by objective records. Minor differences are normal and can result from stress or the passage of time. A credible defense distinguishes central contradictions from harmless variations and avoids attacks based on myths about sexual assault.

Minnesota does not require corroboration. That principle means the defense should not promise dismissal simply because there is no DNA, injury, or eyewitness. It also does not require jurors to accept testimony uncritically. They must decide whether the evidence as a whole proves every element beyond a reasonable doubt.

Suppression and evidentiary motions

Unlawfully obtained statements, phone data, home searches, location records, or bodily samples may be subject to suppression. Other motions may concern Rule 412, privileged records, prior acts, hearsay, expert testimony, child-hearsay provisions, confrontation rights, identification procedures, severance, and the admissibility of recorded interviews.

A successful motion may narrow the evidence or change the viable charge, but suppression is not automatic because an officer made a mistake. The remedy depends on the constitutional or rule violation, standing, warrants and exceptions, and the evidence’s connection to the violation.

What happens after an allegation or charge?

Investigation before charging

Police may seek interviews, search warrants, device extractions, medical evidence, biological samples, surveillance, and records from service providers. A person contacted as a suspect should obtain legal advice before answering questions or consenting to a search. Counsel can communicate with investigators, preserve defense evidence, assess whether voluntary production is appropriate, and reduce the risk of accidental witness contact.

Complaint, first appearance, and release conditions

After charging, the court addresses custody, bail, and conditions. Conditions commonly include no contact, exclusion from a residence or workplace, firearms restrictions, monitoring, and limits involving minors. “No contact” can include indirect messages through friends, family, social media, or shared accounts. A claimed invitation from the protected person may not authorize a violation of the court’s order.

Discovery and defense investigation

Discovery can include reports, recordings, photographs, laboratory material, search-warrant records, phone extractions, medical evidence, expert disclosures, and prior statements. Defense investigation may seek video before it is overwritten, interview witnesses, retain qualified experts, reconstruct timelines, inspect locations, and preserve account or device data.

Confidential medical, therapy, school, child-protection, or personnel records are not automatically available. Requests may require a particularized showing and judicial review that balances defense rights with privilege and privacy. Publicly accusing a witness or trying to obtain records informally can damage the case and cause additional harm.

Motions and trial

Pretrial motions define what evidence the jury will hear and what instructions will govern. At trial, the State must prove the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense may cross-examine witnesses, present admissible evidence, call experts, and argue that the State has not met its burden. The accused may testify but cannot be compelled to do so.

Jury unanimity can become complicated when a charge spans multiple acts or statutory alternatives. In State v. Epps, 964 N.W.2d 419, 425 (Minn. 2021), the Minnesota Supreme Court addressed an unobjected-to closing argument and found no prejudice where the verdict form and polling showed unanimity on force and coercion; the record “refutes Epps’s claim that the prosecutor’s statement caused a lack of jury unanimity.” Read the official opinion. The decision illustrates why the precise charge, instructions, special-verdict questions, objections, and trial record matter; it should not be reduced to a slogan that unanimity never matters.

Negotiation and lesser offenses

Negotiations may concern dismissal, a different degree, a different clause, sentencing, or trial. Any proposal must be evaluated against the evidence, collateral consequences, immigration issues, registration, conditional release, treatment requirements, admissions, and the risk of trial. A lower degree may still carry a presumptive prison sentence and long-term consequences. The written plea petition and factual basis should match the actual agreement.

First-degree sentencing and long-term consequences

Statutory maximum and presumptive prison term

Section 609.342 authorizes up to 30 years’ imprisonment, a $40,000 fine, or both. It also provides a presumptive executed sentence of 144 months unless a longer minimum or presumptive term applies. That is a statutory presumptive sentence, not an absolute mandatory minimum in every case. A different sentence generally requires a legally supported departure, while certain repeat-offender provisions can require life imprisonment.

The 2026 Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines sex-offender grid ranks first-degree criminal sexual conduct at severity level A. For offenses committed on or after August 1, 2026, the grid lists 144 months at a zero criminal-history score, with longer presumptive durations as the score increases. The applicable guidelines edition usually turns on the offense date. A custody-status durational modifier and other sentence modifiers may apply under the current guidelines.

Departures

A dispositional departure concerns whether the sentence is executed or stayed; a durational departure concerns length. Departures require substantial and compelling reasons recognized by law. Amenability to probation, offense-related circumstances, plea terms, treatment evidence, and public-safety considerations can be relevant depending on the requested departure. The statute’s special stay provision for a significant-relationship clause is narrow and contains specific findings and treatment requirements; it is not a general probation option for all first-degree cases.

Conditional release and possible life sentences

Minn. Stat. § 609.3455 (2026) governs mandatory life sentences for certain repeat or heinous sex offenses and conditional release for sex offenders. The result depends on conviction history, offense characteristics, and the precise subdivision. Conditional release follows imprisonment and carries conditions; a violation can result in return to custody. It is separate from ordinary supervised release and must be included when evaluating real exposure.

Registration

A conviction, and in some circumstances another listed disposition, can trigger predatory-offender registration under Minn. Stat. § 243.166 (2026). Registration imposes recurring reporting duties involving residence, employment, school, vehicles, and other information. Duration and requirements depend on the disposition and history. Failure to comply can produce a new felony charge.

Other consequences

A conviction may affect housing, employment, professional licenses, education, firearms, family-court matters, immigration status, travel, and access to children. Sex-offender treatment and assessments may be required. Some individuals may be assessed for civil commitment near the end of a prison term, but a first-degree conviction does not automatically result in civil commitment. That is a separate civil process with its own legal standards.

Sentencing requires an offense-date calculation

It is unsafe to estimate a sentence from the charge name alone. Counsel should identify the alleged date, conviction clause, completed offense or attempt, criminal-history score, custody status, prior sex-offense history, applicable guidelines edition, statutory presumptive term, possible life provisions, conditional-release term, and any departure grounds. The maximum penalty is not the same as the presumptive sentence, and neither is necessarily the time a person ultimately serves in prison.

Frequently asked questions about Minnesota first-degree criminal sexual conduct