This is Miklos Terrell Dates Jr. who is accused of a heinous crime against a 31-year-old woman who was robbed of her cellphone and then urinated on allegedly by Dates and his friends. The sexual assault charge in the case could prove challenging depending on the actions of the individual defendants.
Dates is accused of pulling up along side of the woman. She says that the passengers were wearing wigs and she thought that they were women. She approached the car when they asked for directions. They then pulled her to the car, stole her cellphone, and forced her to the ground. Her pants were pulled down and the occupants then taunted her and urinated on her.
When police caught up to the car, Dates told them that the car was his “auntie’s” car and the cellphone was a friend’s phone. The car turned out to be a rental car that was never returned. Dates was later picked out of a lineup by the victim.
The other occupants were juveniles and there is no report of charges against them, even as juveniles. I assume those charges are coming since an act of this kind shows a degree of depravity that reflects a clear and present danger to society.
Yet, it was the backseat occupant who urinated on the woman.
Dates, 18, was charged with first-degree aggravated robbery and fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct. It is the second charge that is interesting here. That charge includes stripping a person but must also be accompanied with a proscribed touching. Here is the provision:
Subdivision 1.Crime defined. A person is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the fifth degree:
(1) if the person engages in nonconsensual sexual contact; or
(2) the person engages in masturbation or lewd exhibition of the genitals in the presence of a minor under the age of 16, knowing or having reason to know the minor is present.
For purposes of this section, “sexual contact” has the meaning given in section 609.341, subdivision 11, paragraph (a), clauses (i) and (iv), but does not include the intentional touching of the clothing covering the immediate area of the buttocks. Sexual contact also includes the intentional removal or attempted removal of clothing covering the complainant’s intimate parts or undergarments, and the nonconsensual touching by the complainant of the actor’s intimate parts, effected by the actor, if the action is performed with sexual or aggressive intent.
If police are alleging that Dates was the one who urinated on the woman, that might suffice. However, otherwise, it would seem that they would need to show the touching element.
If one of the juveniles were responsible for urination (as well as participating in the stripping of the victim), it is not clear if they are close to the same age as Dates and would be tried as adults. Such a determination must normally be made after a hearing.