State of Minnesota v. Frederick Raymond Couch, A15-1662

J.A. met Couch online after moving to Minnesota; they dated briefly, had sex, and she considered him a boyfriend. After she tried to end the relationship, Couch repeatedly contacted her.
On September 4, 2014, Couch allegedly hit J.A., digitally penetrated her, choked her, and forced sex; J.A. delayed disclosure of the sexual assault to police.
Couch threatened further harm and was later arrested; J.A. obtained an order for protection; Couch continued contacting her.
Couch was charged with third-degree criminal sexual conduct, stalking, pattern-of-stalking conduct, domestic-assault-by-strangulation, and domestic assault; at trial the court admitted testimony from a former girlfriend, H.M., about similar abusive conduct.
A jury convicted Couch on all counts; the district court sentenced him to concurrent terms (135 months for CSC III; 43 months for pattern-of-stalking).
On appeal Couch challenged (1) admission of H.M.’s testimony as relationship evidence under Minn. Stat. § 634.20 and (2) entry of convictions/sentences on both CSC III and pattern-of-stalking as improper lesser-included duplicate convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of prior-relationship evidence under Minn. Stat. § 634.20	State: H.M. was a family/household member because relationship was intimate and recent; evidence illuminates defendant's pattern and helps credibility.	Couch: Relationship too short/not "significant"; evidence unfairly prejudicial and unnecessary.	Admission proper: relationship qualifies and probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice (cautionary instructions given).
Whether CSC III is a lesser-included offense of pattern-of-stalking	State: Pattern-of-stalking requires proof of multiple acts causing terror/fear; does not necessarily subsume a specific sexual-penetration offense.	Couch: CSC III is necessarily proved by proof of pattern-of-stalking, so cannot convict on both.	Rejected: CSC III is not necessarily proved by pattern-of-stalking; convictions and concurrent sentences were lawful.

State v. Matthews, 779 N.W.2d 543 (Minn. 2010) (relationship evidence illuminates history, motive, and credibility)
State v. Amos, 658 N.W.2d 201 (Minn. 2003) (evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. O’Meara, 755 N.W.2d 29 (Minn. App. 2008) (prejudice standard for erroneously admitted evidence)
State v. Barnslater, 786 N.W.2d 646 (Minn. App. 2010) (statutory construction reviewed de novo)
State v. Valentine, 787 N.W.2d 630 (Minn. App. 2010) (admission of other-girlfriend abuse as relationship evidence permissible)
State v. Meyer, 749 N.W.2d 844 (Minn. App. 2008) (unfair prejudice means persuasion by illegitimate means)
State v. Lindsey, 755 N.W.2d 752 (Minn. App. 2008) (cautionary instructions reduce undue weight of relationship evidence)
State v. Ferguson, 581 N.W.2d 824 (Minn. 1998) (presumption that jury follows court instructions)
State v. Gisege, 561 N.W.2d 152 (Minn. 1997) (lesser-included analysis requires examining statutory elements)
State v. Gayles, 327 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 1982) (same: elements, not facts, control lesser-included determination)