State v. Fraga, 2017 Minn. LEXIS 373

Background

Victim S.R., a 2-year-old, died of extensive blunt, abdominal, and sexual trauma while living with appellant Josué Fraga and his family; medical evidence indicated forceful rectal penetration, head trauma, stomach rupture, and signs of malnutrition.
Fraga initially told police a child jumped on S.R.; physical evidence (duct tape, feces, semen, used duct tape, lubricant, adult video, condom) was recovered from the home and car; semen on items excluded Fraga and one son but source otherwise unknown.
Two of Fraga’s children (Child A and Child B) initially denied abuse; after the first trial Child A recanted and Child B later disclosed she had lied and accused Fraga of sexual abuse and witnessing S.R.’s killing; multiple trials followed (conviction, reversal for juror bias, retrial, conviction).
At the third trial Child B testified in detail about repeated sexual abuse and eyewitness account of Fraga killing S.R.; Fraga testified and denied abuse or murder.
The jury convicted Fraga of five murder counts; district court sentenced him to life without parole on count one but the sentencing order erroneously listed convictions on all five counts.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exclusion of full audio/video of Child B’s prior interviews	Recordings necessary to show Child B was not afraid and to impeach credibility; constitutional right to present a complete defense	Recordings cumulative because Child B admitted prior inconsistent statements and extensive cross-examination covered inconsistencies; Rule 403 exclusion proper	Court upheld exclusion as non-abuse of discretion; admissibility governed by Rule 403 and Rule 613(b); no due-process violation
Admission of prior bad-act (sexual abuse of Fraga’s brother) evidence	State: admissible as past pattern/domestic-abuse or relationship evidence	Fraga: irrelevant and highly prejudicial under Rule 403	Even if erroneous, admission harmless given limiting instruction, limited State emphasis, and strong evidence of guilt
Admission of sex-related and medical/financial evidence (ED medication, supplements, lubricant, condom, poor health and payee benefits)	State: relevant to rebut ED claim, corroborate Child B, and prove child-abuse/neglect element	Fraga: irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial	Court affirmed admission as relevant and not unduly prejudicial; evidence probative to elements and rebuttal of defense
Prosecutorial statements about receipt of benefits and children’s poor health in closing	Prosecutor: reasonable inferences from evidence showing Fraga had resources but children were neglected	Fraga: statements implied intentional deprivation, inflaming jury	Not plain error; statements repeated properly admitted evidence or reasonable inferences; no reversible misconduct

Key Cases Cited

State v. Smith, 876 N.W.2d 310 (Minn. 2016) (defendant’s right to present a meaningful defense subject to evidentiary rules)
State v. Nissalke, 801 N.W.2d 82 (Minn. 2011) (evidence offered by defense must comply with rules of evidence)
State v. Pearson, 775 N.W.2d 155 (Minn. 2009) (admission of a prior recorded statement is within discretion and context-specific)
State v. Moua, 678 N.W.2d 29 (Minn. 2004) (review standard for evidentiary rulings: abuse of discretion)
State v. Bell, 719 N.W.2d 635 (Minn. 2006) (definition of unfair prejudice under Rule 403)
State v. Beaulieu, 859 N.W.2d 275 (Minn. 2015) (forfeiture and plain-error review)
State v. Matthews, 779 N.W.2d 543 (Minn. 2010) (plain-error framework)
State v. Pippitt, 645 N.W.2d 87 (Minn. 2002) (cannot convict multiple counts of murder for same act against same victim)