State of Minnesota v. James Roland Bain, A16-127

In April 2015, J.B., age 26, visited her father James Roland Bain; while alone, Bain sat close and restricted her movement.
J.B. testified Bain rubbed her thigh, used his thumb to stimulate her vaginal area through her jeans, and touched her breast; she left upset and reported the incident the next day.
Bain was charged with and convicted by a jury of fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct under Minn. Stat. § 609.3451, subd. 1(1) (2014).
At trial the jury was instructed that the State must prove intentional contact with the victim’s “intimate parts” or the clothing over them; the court did not define “intimate parts.”
Bain did not object to the jury instruction at trial and now appeals, arguing (1) the court erred by not defining “intimate parts,” and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred by failing to define “intimate parts” in the jury instruction	State: Instruction using the term “intimate parts” tracked the statute and CRIMJIG and was sufficient	Bain: Failure to define the term was error that affected his substantial rights	Court: No error — “intimate parts” is within ordinary juror understanding; no definition required
Whether evidence was sufficient to support conviction for fifth-degree CSC	State: J.B.’s testimony describing rubbing of thigh, stimulation through jeans, and breast contact supports intentional touching of intimate parts or clothing covering them	Bain: Testimony was too vague to show contact with intimate parts; thigh contact alone insufficient	Court: Sufficient evidence — a reasonable jury could find intentional touching of clothing over inner thighs/vaginal area and breast

State v. Gatson, 801 N.W.2d 134 (Minn. 2011) (jury instructions viewed in their entirety and district court has latitude in wording)
State v. Rucker, 752 N.W.2d 538 (Minn. App. 2008) (no reversible error where instructions correctly state law in understandable language)
State v. Crowsbreast, 629 N.W.2d 433 (Minn. 2001) (failure to object to instructions generally forfeits appellate review)
State v. White, 684 N.W.2d 500 (Minn. 2004) (plain-error exception to forfeiture for jury-instruction challenges)
State v. Milton, 821 N.W.2d 789 (Minn. 2012) (plain-error test elements for unpreserved claims)
State v. Little, 851 N.W.2d 878 (Minn. 2014) (an error is plain if clear and obvious on appeal)
State v. Gunderson, 812 N.W.2d 156 (Minn. App. 2012) (following CRIMJIG does not automatically avoid plain-error review if statute conflicts)
State v. Heinzer, 347 N.W.2d 535 (Minn. App. 1984) (no need to define common words in jury instructions)
State v. Webb, 440 N.W.2d 426 (Minn. 1989) (standard for sufficiency review)
Bernhardt v. State, 684 N.W.2d 465 (Minn. 2004) (appellate deference to jury credibility findings)
State v. Moore, 438 N.W.2d 101 (Minn. 1989) (assume jury believed state witnesses when reviewing sufficiency)

Outcome: Conviction affirmed.