State v. Pakhnyuk
Annotate this Case
The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' decision affirming Defendant's conviction, holding (1) the forfeiture rule does not apply to a defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence that is based on a statutory interpretation argument when he fails to raise it in the district court; and (2) a criminal defendant charged with interference with privacy under Minn. Stat. 609.746, subd. 1(a) must have a specific intent only to the act of gazing, staring, or peeping through the victim's window.
On appeal, Defendant argued for the first time that the evidence was insufficient because the language of section 609.746, subd. 1(a) required the State to prove Defendant had the specific intent "to intrude upon or interfere with" the privacy of another person. The court of appeals held that Defendant did not forfeit his statutory interpretation argument but then rejected the argument. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence that is based on a statutory interpretation argument may be raised for the first time on appeal; and (2) a criminal defendant charged with interference with privacy under subdivision 1(a) need not have a specific intent to intrude upon or interfere with the victim's privacy when he enters the property of another.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.