State v. Lee, 929 N.W.2d 432

Background

Lee was convicted of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and domestic assault by strangulation based largely on the victim S.M.L.'s detailed testimony, medical exam findings, and forensic evidence.
After charges, a domestic abuse no-contact order (DANCO) barred Lee and third parties from accessing the shared home, which was the alleged crime scene.
Lee moved to amend release conditions to allow defense counsel and an investigator to inspect and photograph the home; the district court denied the motion.
A special-term panel of the court of appeals had earlier held that Michael Gary Lee entitled a defendant to inspect a private residence; the court of appeals later concluded the district court abused discretion but found the error harmless and affirmed convictions.
The Minnesota Supreme Court granted review, addressed whether Minn. R. Crim. P. 9.01 requires access to third-party–controlled crime scenes and whether denial violated due process or effective assistance; it ruled the rule does not require access and held any constitutional-error claim was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Minn. R. Crim. P. 9.01 require the State to allow inspection of a crime scene controlled by a third party?	Lee: Rule 9.01(1)(3)(e) and 1a(2) compel access to places that relate to the case, regardless of who controls them; Michael Gary Lee supports this right.	State: Rule’s plain language limits the State’s obligation to matters within its possession or control; the State cannot compel third parties to permit entry.	Held: Rule 9.01 does not authorize requiring inspection of locations controlled by third parties; Michael Gary Lee is overruled.
Did denial of inspection violate Lee’s federal or state constitutional rights to due process and effective assistance of counsel?	Lee: Counsel needed to inspect layout, objects (e.g., walker, Metamucil) to undermine victim’s testimony and present a complete defense.	State: Even if a constitutional right existed, any error in denying access was harmless given strong testimony, medical and forensic evidence, and cross-examination about withheld access.	Held: Court assumed without deciding a constitutional right might exist but concluded any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; no new trial.
Whether the court of appeals’ special-term order established the law of the case requiring inspection?	Lee: The court of appeals’ special-term order, applied earlier, meant the district court’s denial contravened controlling precedent.	State: The law-of-the-case issue is unnecessary to resolve; higher court may review.	Held: Treated as dicta; Supreme Court overruled Michael Gary Lee on rule interpretation and did not rely on law-of-the-case to change outcome.
Remedy and appropriate balancing when third-party privacy conflicts with defendant’s inspection request	Lee: Access necessary; defense may be allowed under reasonable conditions.	State: Property owners’ exclusionary rights and privacy weigh against compelled access; court should not force third-party entry under Rule 9.01.	Held: Rule 9.01 cannot compel third-party access; concurring opinion endorsed a qualified due-process framework (prima facie showing; time/place/manner limits) though not necessary to decision.

Key Cases Cited

Michael Gary Lee v. State, 461 N.W.2d 245 (Minn. App. 1990) (earlier appellate decision permitting inspection of private residence; overruled on Rule 9.01 interpretation)
Byrd v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1518 (2018) (discusses property right to exclude and expectation of privacy)
Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) (right to exclude supports reasonable expectation of privacy)
State v. Paradee, 403 N.W.2d 640 (Minn. 1987) (balancing privacy and defendant’s access to evidence; in camera procedures)
State v. Beecroft, 813 N.W.2d 814 (Minn. 2012) (discusses defendant’s right to present a complete defense)
State v. Davis, 820 N.W.2d 525 (Minn. 2012) (harmless-error standard for constitutional errors)
State v. McAllister, 862 N.W.2d 49 (Minn. 2015) (harmless-error analysis where verdict was unattributable to alleged error)