State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Ge Yang, Appellant, A240228

A jury convicted Ge Yang of first- and second-degree criminal sexual conduct for sexually abusing his minor stepdaughter, A.K., and the district court sentenced him to 144 months on the first-degree count. 1
The State charged first-degree criminal sexual conduct under section 609.342, subdivision 1(g), and second-degree criminal sexual conduct under section 609.343, subdivision 1(h)(iii). 2
At trial, A.K. testified that Yang committed multiple penetrative acts, including cunnilingus and fellatio, on different days and in different locations over about two years. 3
Yang did not request a specific-unanimity instruction, and the jury received only a general-unanimity instruction. 4
The court of appeals affirmed, relying in part on State v. Rucker, but the supreme court granted review after deciding State v. Keyes. 5
The supreme court held that the State's proof of multiple distinct penetrative acts required a specific-unanimity instruction and that the omission was plain error requiring a new trial on the first-degree count. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was a specific-unanimity instruction required? 7	Yang argued multiple distinct penetrative acts required juror agreement on one act.	The State argued the evidence showed only alternative means or examples of abuse.	Yes; multiple distinct acts entitled Yang to specific unanimity. 8
Did the lack of instruction constitute plain error? 9	Yang said the omission was plain error affecting substantial rights.	The State argued no reversible error existed.	Yes; the omission was plain error affecting substantial rights and fairness. 10
Does Rucker control? 11	Yang argued Rucker should not govern after Keyes.	The State relied on Rucker to defeat specific unanimity.	No; Rucker was overruled as inconsistent with Keyes. 12

State v. Keyes, N.W.3d (Minn. 2026) (adopted the framework for when specific unanimity is required 13)
State v. Rucker, 752 N.W.2d 538 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008) (overruled as inconsistent with Keyes 14)
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (U.S. 1970) (due process requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every element 15)
Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. 83 (U.S. 2020) (unanimous jury verdict right applies to the states 16)
Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813 (U.S. 1999) (jury must agree on elements, not statutory means 17)
Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624 (U.S. 1991) (elements-versus-means framework for jury unanimity 18)