824 N.W.2d 334
Minn. Ct. App.2012Background
- Appellant was convicted of first-degree criminal sexual conduct with a victim under 18.
- C.W., age 12, lived with appellant and her mother A.W. in Chaska in early 2008.
- C.W. testified appellant sexually abused her starting January 2008, including kissing, finger penetration, and intercourse, at his home and later on weekends after he moved out.
- The last reported act occurred September 27, 2008; she did not disclose abuse until late 2010.
- In 2011, C.W. disclosed abuse at an urgent care visit; law enforcement charged appellant.
- Trial occurred September 2011; defense sought to admit evidence of C.W.’s STD report to show motive to fabricate; the court denied under rape-shield rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the court coercively instruct the jury to decide a verdict? | Appellant argues the instruction coerced verdict. | Respondent contends overall instructions did not coerce. | Reversible error; coercive instruction. |
| Did the court abuse its discretion excluding prior sexual conduct evidence to show motive to fabricate? | Appellant argues evidence shows motive to fabricate due to STD context. | Respondent contends evidence is inadmissible under rape-shield and 412, not probative. | No abuse; admissibility properly denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Cox, 820 N.W.2d 540 (Minn. 2012) (coercive jury instruction standards when deadlocked)
- State v. Jones, 556 N.W.2d 903 (Minn. 1996) (totality-of-the-instructions approach to coercion)
- State v. Martin, 297 Minn. 359, 211 N.W.2d 765 (Minn. 1969) (jury must not be told the case must be decided)
- State v. Petrich, 494 N.W.2d 298 (Minn.App. 1992) (coercive instruction after deadlock analyzed)
- State v. Fidel, 451 N.W.2d 350 (Minn. App. 1990) (deadlock instructions and jury coercion considerations)
- State v. Buggs, 581 N.W.2d 829 (Minn. 1998) (per se rule against telling jury to decide)
- State v. Kroshus, 447 N.W.2d 203 (Minn. App. 1989) (evidence limitations and witness credibility considerations)
- State v. Carroll, 639 N.W.2d 623 (Minn. App. 2002) (admissibility of prior acts evidence in sexual conduct cases)
- State v. Benedict, 397 N.W.2d 337 (Minn. 1986) (constitutional due process and admissibility)
- State v. Young, 610 N.W.2d 361 (Minn. App. 2000) (coercive instruction after limited deliberations)