*1 Minnesota, Respondent, STATE of SONTOYA,
Michael Carrasco
Appellant.
No. A09-1480.
Supreme Court Minnesota.
Sept. *2 conduct,
first-degree criminal sexual second-degree unintentional murder while assault, committing first-degree arising out *3 of the death of September G.R. on 2008. The district court judgment entered of conviction for first-degree murder while committing first-degree criminal sexual conduct, Sontoya and sentenced to life in prison without possibility of release. appeal, Sontoya On direct argues that the expert testimony G.R.’s were due to sexual assault constituted reversible deprived error that him of a fair Sontoya trial. also asserts pro various arguments. se Because we Sontoya’s conclude that arguments lack merit, we affirm. a.m. September 6:48
emergency personnel dispatched were Sontoya’s upper level duplex located in St. response Paul 911 call. fully Paramedics found G.R. dressed on the bedroom floor. She was not breath- ing; she had no pulse; body detectable her stiff; was cold and and her veins were flat. Sontoya paramedics told that G.R. was right they alive before arrived. Paramed- wall, ics noticed blood on the floor and as well as clotted blood in airway. blood on the wall appeared to have been partially wiped away. Splatters of blood Swanson, General, Lori Attorney St. led from the bedroom through hallway Paul, MN; Gaertner, and Ramsey Susan Sontoya bathroom. explained that County Attorney, Rothman, Mitchell L. there was blood on the carpet walls and County Attorney, Paul, MN, Assistant St. because G.R. was menstruating. par- respondent. for very amedics found little blood on G.R.’s Merchant, David W. Appellate Chief clothing, but found dried blood in her um- Defender, Atwal, Public Tony G. Assistant fingernail bilicus and beds. Defender, Paul, MN, State Public St. for emergency told personnel that appellant. G.R. and he had been at a bar previous evening, and then went duplex his OPINION a.m., sex, around 2:00 had and went to DIETZEN, Justice. sleep. Sontoya awoke, When G.R. was Appellant Michael Carrasco unresponsive; Sontoya brother, called his guilty by found a Ramsey County jury police officer, who him per- told how to of first-degree murder while committing CPR, form and him told to call 911. hemorrhaged, Paul her go rupted, diaphragm to the St. Sontoya agreed to lacerated, spleen her liver were further Department questioning. Police anal area was torn. Her her arms phone pat-searched, his cell He was with caused spotted pressure bruises as deposited evidence was seized fingerprints, nearly and there were two his Mi- waiving After property room. including fresh her legs, dozen bruises on randa Sontoya was interviewed rights, large hemorrhage right hip areas of on her af- morning 9:30 2:30 about scalp sepa- and left buttock. Her had during He stated that their sexu- ternoon. shortly rate bruises that were inflicted be- activity, put fingers he two inside G.R.’s al *4 menstruating, fore her death. G.R. was his request and at her he inserted vagina, experiencing heavy was not a dis- but vagina. her After their sexual fist into charge. they herself and activity, G.R. dressed medical examiner dis- to bed. The
went persons DNA from two or more was Sontoya’s of events testi- puted version Sontoya’s The ring. predominate found on herself, the had dressed fying that G.R. with DNA contributor was consistent have pooled in her abdomen would blood G.R., profile. Blood on the box G.R.’s clothing. Sontoya out onto her When mattress, wall, bled the spring and the bedroom a.m., shortly was door, after 6:30 G.R. awoke in hallway, a bedroom baseboard couple her of unresponsive. gave He a paper a towel in the bathroom wastebas- breaths, his for and then called brother ket, bags a in of the plastic and shirt one Sontoya having “rough sex” help. denied DNA from one consistent contained source been G.R. and stated that sex had car- profile. with G.R.’s The vomit on the with “totally DNA with pet consensual.” also contained consistent profile. police that morning,
Later
executed
Sontoya
first-degree
was indicted
Sontoya’s
Po-
duplex.
warrant at
search
committing
attempting
while
murder
on
large amounts of blood
lice discovered
in the first
commit criminal sexual conduct
walls,
floor,
carpeting,
the bedroom
and
degree
force or
or second
with
violence
carpet.
vomit on
The medical
and
609.185(a)(2)
§
of
violation
Minn.Stat.
opined that G.R. vomited when
examiner
(2008) and with unintentional second-de-
bloody
lost consciousness. Several
she
committing first-degree
murder
gree
while
bed-
impressions
hand
were visible on the
609.19,
§
assault
violation of Minn.Stat.
with at-
room walls and were consistent
2(1) (2008).
subd.
paper
clean
with
tempts
rags
the wall
wiped
he
towels.
admitted that
trial,
presented
State
off
walls. Blood had
some blood
Sontoya’s state-
emergency personnel,
of
through
carpet,
there was
soaked
ments,
autopsy,
of the
results
bottom the mat-
top
blood on
Also,
photograph
DNA evidence.
top
spring.
on the
of the box
tress and
Sontoya’s
phone
taken with
cell
G.R.
nearby
bags
items of
plastic
Two
held
In
was
morning
a.m.
submitted.
5:40
bloody,
were
clothing
women’s
lying
naked
photograph,
G.R.
in the bathroom contained
wastebasket
But
unresponsive on the bedroom floor.
bloody paper towels.
911 until almost one
Sontoya did not call
later,
emergency personnel
and when
hour
day
autopsy conducted that same
The
arrived,
fully
G.R. was
dressed.
through
a 14-inch laceration
revealed
was that the sex
pelvic
wall into the
area and
defense
vaginal
injuries and death
dis-
consensual and G.R.’s
cavity. G.R.’s bowel was
abdominal
testify.
expert’s
accidental. He did not
The
admission of an
Sontoya guilty
charges.
found
of both
opinion testimony generally
within
rests
judgment
district court entered
discretion
district court.
first-degree
conviction
criminal-sex-
(Minn.
Moore,
murder verdict and sentenced
ual-conduct
2005). Opinion
objection
testimony is not
prison
possi-
to life in
without the
merely
an ulti
able
because it embraces
bility
release.
jury.
mate issue to be decided
exercising
Minn. R. Evid. 704. In
its dis
I.
cretion, the district court must examine
Sontoya argues the medical exam
expert
qualified
express
is
unobjected-to
iner’s
opinion,
opinion
and whether the
is
sexually
assaulted constitutes re
G.R.
it
helpful because
“will assist the trier of
error,
his
versible
and therefore
conviction
fact to understand the
or to de
evidence
be reversed and a new trial
must
ordered.
a fact in
termine
issue.”
Minn. R.
review
We have discretion to
unob-
*5
Moreover,
Evid. 702.
court
district
jected-to
plain
error under
error
rule.
special
must
care to
that
use
ensure
31.02;
Griller,
Minn. R.Crim. P.
v.
State
jury
pre
understands that the defendant’s
(Minn.1998).
736,
583 N.W.2d
740
When
sumption of innocence is maintained and
prosecutorial
alleged,
misconduct is not
jury
responsible
judging
that the
is
(1)
proving
defendant has the burden of
credibility
expert
testimony.
(2)
(3)
error,
that
plain,
is
and
affects
Moore,
(citing
verdict. Id. The defendant bears a “heavy probative substantially burden” of its value out persuasion on this is prong. Id. weighed danger of unfair prejudice, error confusion, jury. significant likelihood that the had a misleading Griller, jury’s effect on the verdict. R. Evid. 403. “heavy N.W.2d at 741. bears a resulted persuasion prong. burden” of on this Id. in italics is below: error indicated claimed To determine whether error had a autopsy, As result of State: verdict, significant jury’s effect on the your training experi- based case, strength review the of the State’s ence, you did come to a conclusion as error, pervasiveness of the and whether [G.R.j’s cause manner to the ' opportunity the defendant had an to re death? spond testimony. See State Yes. Expert: Davis, that conclusion? State: What was Expert: You want the cause death? examination An of those demon- factors first. Cause of death State: strates admission of testi- mony did not affect substantial multiple due to Expert: Exsanguination injuries rights. Sontoya’s guilt The evidence of due to a sexual as- traumatic number, overwhelming. loca- sault tion, severity injuries ex- death from sexual State: She bled to any injuries ceed have oc- might assault? accidentally during curred sex. consensual Yes. Expert: this And evidence shows that the Manner? State: *6 with force were inflicted or violence. Expert: Homicide. Sontoya’s body, to clean efforts G.R.’s added.) (Emphasis her, wipe dress the from his blood addressing alleged In an error provide bedroom additional evidence walls rule, plain-error “[i]f the defen under guilt. photograph of The on Sonto- found that the claimed dant fails establish original ya’s phone cell the documented rights, affected we error his substantial position body, nude and indicat- of G.R.’s not consider the other factors.”1 need un- Sontoya that was of G.R.’s ed aware Goelz, 249, (Minn. 258 v. 743 N.W.2d State nearly hour before responsiveness an 2007). deciding it Assuming without that he called 911. the medical plain error to admit exam was Also, perva- error not the assumed was testimony, examine whether the iner’s we testimony was a small disputed sive. The testimony Sontoya’s affected substantial testimo- portion of the medical examiner’s prong, we rights. prejudice Under the the ny.2 prosecutor the referenced is a While examine whether there reasonable 275, (Minn.2003) (noting 664 283 that the admis- 1. The concurrence concludes testimony “[n]ormally, we the medical examiner’s was that would consider sion of while court, however, order,” plain. that prong plain-error an error was each test prongs required all three of is not to address case be- "need not do so” in this the court may plain-error it the rule. Instead conclude the "cannot cause the defendant establish alleged not affect a defen- error did rights”). his claimed error affected substantial deciding rights without dant's substantial testimony was 75 Goelz, examiner’s 2. The medical State prongs. v. 743 N.W.2d two other disputed was pages, of which 249, (Minn.2007); State see also v. Atkin- 258 page. prosecutor son, (Minn.2009) about one-half of (skip- 774 N.W.2d repeated times when three plain-error prongs ping the first two of (1) "She questioning medical examiner: alleged considering only whether test assault?”; (2) Manley, from the sexual State prejudicial); was bled death plain error during testimony had a effect on disputed significant three times ed Therefore, closing the focus of the closing argument,3 jury’s verdict. we do not con- extent of argument was on nature and sider we “should address the er- po- injuries, statements to integrity ensure and the ror to fairness lice, photograph Griller, and the G.R. Sonto- judicial proceedings.” Moreover, ya’s jury in- phone. cell N.W.2d at 740. limits appropriate on the placed
structions testimony. Specifically, witness’s II. they instructed that Sontoya five issues in raises 'his judges “the sole of whether a witness is to First, supplemental pro Sontoya se brief. weight given be believed and to be argues incriminating that his statements testimony,” expert opin- witness’s and that during police interview were made un ion evidence “is entitled to neither more pretense[s].” Sontoya der “false claims any than you nor less consideration requested attorney that he twice before other evidence.” began his interview and that he was intoxi Further, Sontoya responded to the dis- Sontoya’s alleged requests cated. for an puted testimony during argument. closing attorney, however, not on the are video contended the medical exam- Moreover, his tape interview. Specifi- iner was and not biased credible. bring did not a motion before district cally, argued he the medical examiner suppress court to his statement. General “has his medical badge taken off he ly, will not consider issues raised for Quincy.... you has become it [He] told appeal. Dykes the first time on v. Sukup Essentially, a crim sexual assault.” Co., (Minn. Mfg. 781 N.W.2d 584 n. argued he medical examiner was 2010); Anderson, an agent trying of the State to secure a (Minn.2007); Kremer, pointed conviction. He out that the medi- 309, 312-13, cal merely conclusion his *7 (“[T]he (1976) rule that fundamental this opinion, jury apply and that the should its will court not decide which issues are you common “[A]ll sense. here have for the appeal raised first time on has not sense, you. you common all of All of subject exception been to an where the bruising. All you understand under- tardily raised allegedly errors consist of wounds, you gave stand head all of He do. (ci procedures.” unconstitutional criminal you opinion.” his omitted)). have, however, tation We re
We that right conclude has not satis- served the in rare cases to examine a “heavy persuasion justice fied the burden” of that requires, provided new issue as it is rights his party substantial were affected prejudicial not to either to do so. record, disputed testimony. 103.04; On this there Minn. R. P. Civ.App. Dykes, Martin, is no disput- 2; reasonable likelihood that the at 781 N.W.2d 584 n. State v. (1) you “Were able to determine what three [G.R.] time references "[S]he were: bled assault, bleeding to death from a sexual as [the died from out due sexual medical to a as- testified”; (2) sault?”; examiner] medical (3) "[The exam- ''[Y]cm testified that cause you told that from a iner] she died sexual bleeding of [G.R.'s] death was out from her death”; that bleed assault caused her to internal from the Do sexual assault. (3) "You didn't [the need exam- you opinion long have an as to how it would you experi- tell based decades of iner] have taken to bleed out?” [G.R.] doing autopsies ence sexual assault and she bled to death from it.” (Minn.2009). to “show the photograph is admissible 89, Son- 97 n. 773 N.W.2d the victim as extraordinary ‘spark present of life’ and to establish has failed to toya Carney, v. being.” a human circumstances, we decline to and therefore (Minn.2002). Therefore, this issue. reach district court did not abuse its discre- Second, Sontoya argues admitting photograph. tion grand jury presented the evidence Fourth, two Sontoya argues that cause probable to establish was insufficient jury improperly were con second- members of for either first-or him to indict persons during other the trial. Sontoya ar tacted Specifically, murder. degree jurors improp were (1) He contends that the medical exam other than gues that entitled erly influenced and therefore he is testimony, the evidence iner’s inadmissible to a new trial. A district court’s decision assault oc that a sexual failed to show (2) juror impartial can continue to be evidence of there was no curred exposed pri to information or being an indict after Objections to premeditation. about the case out later vate communications by motion no must be made ment is reviewed proceedings of the trial the omnibus hear side days three before than 10.04, and for an abuse of discretion. See State P. subd. Minn. R.Crim. ing. (Minn. Richards, 2-3; 552 N.W.2d 17.06, v. Whit see also State subds. Cox, 1996); 322 N.W.2d taker, a waiver. do constitutes Failure to so may grant P. 10.03. We R.Crim. incident, In an alternate the first good cause. from the waiver
relief seated, a conver juror, who was overheard Whittaker, at 448. outside the sation between two individuals any that would reasons has not identified person one said to the courtroom which Thus, this issue is good cause. constitute “Oh, guilty.” is so person other he Fur to address it. and we decline waived inci personnel court of the juror informed at ther, regularity presumption “[a] jurors. other presence in the dent indictment, grand taches to questioned court the district Subsequently, the indict rarely invalidate courts will attorneys and Son- jurors all the with the true” “especially Id. This is ment.” jurors’ upon the re toya present. Based guilty found the defendant has been where indi attorneys parties for the sponses, the Scruggs, a fair trial. State jurors they satisfied that cated *8 707, 717 N.W.2d by the incident not influenced In the impartial. Third, could remain fair Sontoya that a fami argues incident, by an juror was asked second and her children ly photograph of G.R. discuss the juror if the could person other displayed into evidence and introduced the incident to juror reported was case. The closing argument during the State’s brought the and the court personnel, court photograph unfairly prejudicial. parties. incident to the attention objection into evidence without received party that was raised either testimony by No concern of life” during “spark any influenced juror improperly its ad Consequently, we review father. no fur court took manner. The district missibility plain error. incident and Griller, regarding either 31.02; ther action P. R.Crim. Sontoya had not impliedly concluded4 because a plain error occurred 740. No prejudiced or Sontoya was not ruled had the district court have been better It would (con- ANDERSON, H„ been or prejudiced deprived of a fair trial. PAUL Justice record, Sontoya On this has failed to curring). estab- lish that the district court abused its dis- I concur in the result reached cretion, deprived or that he was of a fair majority and would affirm the conviction of trial. appellant, Sontoya; Michael Carrasco but separately I write emphasize my to con- Fifth, Sontoya claims that the dis respect cern with to the content of the improperly reports trict court reviewed be testimony. The court began. fore trial The district court error, assumes that there was it and was reports reviewed because there had been plain, and then concludes that the assumed motions, pretrial no court wanted plain error did not affect sub- familiarity some with likely the issues stantial I rights. skip analy- would not Sontoya occur at argues trial. sis prongs under the first two and would reports hearsay contained evidence and ir conclude that there was error it and was materials, relevant improperly influ Moreover, plain. emphasize my I want to enced the ruling objec district court’s on position that how the court reached its Sontoya tions. But does not cite either conclusion on the prong third should not legal authority the record or support detract from the serious nature of the Therefore, this claim. we decline to con underlying error. only reason I sider this issue on its merits.5 See State affirm would is because this is one of those Tomassoni, (Minn. cases where the evidence that Sontoya 2010) (“[T]his court pro does not consider murdered committing G.R. while at- or se on appeal supported claims that are not tempting to commit criminal sexual con- by argument or citation legal authori duct overwhelming, is so we should affirm ty”); Bartylla, N.W.2d despite “ the serious nature of the error. (Minn.2008) (noting that assignment ‘[a]n The facts surrounding the of error based on murder of mere assertion and not G.R. are supported paint gruesome horrible and by any argument or authorities picture of how she spent ... the last hours is waived and will not be considered on her life. The appeal evidence that prejudicial unless error is obvious ”) perpetrator of the acts that inspection’ mere ended (quoting Louden v. Louden, G.R.’s life is 338, 339, overwhelming, as is 221 Minn. the evi- (1946)). dence that murdered G.R. while committing attempting to commit crimi-
Affirmed. nal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force violence in violation of ANDERSON, Concurring, PAUL H. 609.185(a)(2)(2008). § Minn.Stat. The dis- PAGE, JJ. trict court’s error in admitting the medical STRAS, J., not having been a member examiner’s testimony regarding an ele- *9 of this court at the time of argument offense, the ment of the which is to be deter- submission, and took in part no the by jury, mined does not affect this consideration or decision of Therefore, this case. jury’s result. verdict that deprived a explained judge of fair nial and its rea- support to "follow the law” would re soning. Burrell, jection of claim. See State v. 772 459, (Minn.2009). N.W.2d 5. Were we to consider this issue on the mer its, "great our ability confidence” in the of the
§77 mony argument in guilty closing be affirmed. But its when it made Sontoya is should following I assertions: as affirm conviction believe context a only said, do so in the of I we can As we know that G.R. died testimony like horrific death. She from a strong statement bled to death assault, improper sexual as the examiner of the medical examiner is medical has testified. will not be tolerated in the future. The medical examiner testified G.R. Testimony on an issue—an ultimate ele died as a result of to bleeding death objec not generally ment of the crime—is That, from a sexual assault. Ladies helpful if testimony tionable is to the Gentlemen, is in the First Murder
jury. See R. Evid. But be Degree. expert testimony cause the of witness you medical examiner told that she unduly potential has the to influence a died from a sexual assault that caused jury, “[sjpecial we have said that must care her to bleed to death. judge be to taken trial ensure added.) (Emphasis presumption the defendant’s of innocence admissible, To expert testimony be get flurry not lost in of expert does “precision should add depth or and, importantly, more that the jury’s ability to reach about conclusions credibility responsibility judging matters that not experience.” are within its jury.” remains the facts with the v. DeShay, State N.W.2d (Minn. Grecinger, 569 N.W.2d (Minn.2003). The basic consideration 1997). deciding expert whether to admit testimo Sontoya’s trial, ny the last called is the testimony help witness whether will Ramsey County factual resolving questions. the State Med- Gre cinger, “help who 195. To be body ical Examiner examined G.R.’s ful,” expert “explain should at the crime scene and conducted the au- phenomenon understanding not within the examination, During topsy. direct an ordinary lay person.” of v. Hen State that the medical examiner testified cause num, “exsanguinations death due Expert testimony is if “the helpful not due multiple traumatic to a subject is within sexual assault.” The State followed this lay jury knowledge experience question with a answer about G.R. the testimony will not “bled to death from the sexual assault” precision ability depth jury’s add and, answer, in his examiner subject to reach conclusions about confirmed that she had. medical ex- ” experience.... which is within their aminer then that the testified manner Helterbridle, State N.W.2d The State death “homicide.” contin- question ued to medical examiner as to whether he could determine G.R.’s time of test, con- helpfulness Under the we have During death due “sexual assault.” sistently “not allowed ultimate conclusion questioning, this the medical examiner tes- legal conclu- testimony which embraces DeWald, that the tified contusions G.R.’s arms art.” sions terms of (Minn.1990); “fingerprint injuries” which also occur 463 see (stat- is grabbed “during when someone the Minn. 704 comm. cmt.-1977 R. Evid. *10 legal Finally, ing expert testimony involving of an assault.” the course that analysis questions law and fact expert the medical or mixed of used examiner’s testi- fact). helpful Moore, is not to the trier recently, of This More in State v. the charged defendant necessary opinions first-degree rule is because was with involv- assault. 699 N.W.2d analysis ing legal questions or mixed trial, witness, At expert the State’s the fact law and are of no use to the trier of treating physician, testified that the vic- Chambers, fact. State v. tim’s met the legal definition of (Minn.1993); Lopez- see also State v. harm,” “great bodily an element of the Rios, (Minn.2003) charged offense and the defendant was (“[WJhile evidentiary the rules do not bar convicted. Id. at 736. appeal, On we held all expert testimony concerning the ulti- that expert testimony physician issue, mate may district court exclude improper inadmissible, was it because testimony ultimate issue ... when the tes- legal constituted a conclusion on an ele- timony merely jury would tell the what charged ment of the merely offense and reach.”). result to jury told the what result to reach. Id. at in past We have stated admis- 740. We jury reasoned that was physician’s opinion sion of a rape equally capable or determining whether sexual assault the victim great bodily occurred constitutes error. suffered harm and Saldana, expert that the testimony For did not add example, pre- the de- cision depth jury’s to the ability to charged fendant was with first-degree reach a question. conclusion on the Id. criminal sexual conduct. 324 N.W.2d We found reversible error and remanded trial, the defendant for a new trial. Id. having admitted to had sexual intercourse with alleged victim but claimed that Here, the medical testimony activity the sexual was consensual. Id. sexually G.R. was assaulted was a claim, To rebut the defendant’s the State legal conclusion a key element of the witness, offered testimony expert of an crime with which Sontoya charged. was who alleged stated that the victim was in The helpful was not jury; sexually fact assaulted and raped. rather, it jury told the the sexual appealed defendant his conviction and on assault element of charged first-degree appeal, adopted we majority rule of murder offense had been proved by the other courts that “admission State.1 physi- Consequently, expert of a testimo- ny opinion impermissibly cian’s that rape upon jury’s or sexual assault intruded “responsibility judging credibility had occurred is error.” Id. at 231. We Grecinger, facts.” jurors concluded that N.W.2d at 193. capable of con- capable sidering determining the admissible evidence and de- sexually G.R. was assaulted and termining rape whether a occurred and the expert testimony precision did not add expert that the helpful was not depth jury’s ability to reach its jury. say Id. We went on to own conclusion. a legal conclu- sion, “which was of no jury.” use Further, it should be noted that Sontoya Id. We then held that the erroneous ad- is not suggesting that the medical examin- mission of physician’s testimony er could not have testified as to the cause reversible error and remanded the case for and manner of example, G.R.’s death. For a new trial. Id. at Chambers, proper summarized the 609.185(a)(2); § 1. Minn.Stat. Guides, Criminal, see also Jury CRIMJIG Instmction Ass'n, Judges (5th ed.2006). Minn. Disl. 11.07 Minnesota Practice- *11 charged in a tested element of the offense. scope pathologist’s of a time, unfairly prej- the same as follows: murder case Sontoya’s udiced consent defense. More- may testify pathologist appropriately A over, the improper medical examiner’s ex- the number extent things to such as in a pert testimony presented manner wounds, bleeding, the amount of that could the jury. not have been lost on a the wounds caused whether very nature Expert testimony by its has a instrument, a or a blunt whether knife jury. to a potential unduly influence wound, is a gunshot wound contact medical examiner was also the last witness could or could not the wounds jury to heard before it retired deliber- accident, result of have been the which no way ate meant had in death, forth, and so but the cause of to which counter the medical examiner’s not be allowed to pathologist should testimony. “expert inference” of intent to make an
kill these matters. That is for the from circumstances, Under most similar we jury to do. would have alternative other than no Chambers, plain at 239. conclude that the error committed the admission of the medical examiner’s law, our I To consistent with case be Sontoya’s affected substantial we must conclude believe rights and ultimate that affected the out- testimony that G.R. was sexual- Nevertheless, I come the case. con- assaulted, charged element of ly an plain clude that this is one those error offense, first-degree murder was inadmis- cases where of the overwhelming because testimony and have sible should Sontoya’s guilt, evidence should af- Further, I conclude that been excluded. firm the and the jury’s verdict conviction. this nature affects error of substantial rights prejudicial if it is affects the PAGE, Justice, (concurring). Ihle, case. State v. outcome of the join I of Justice Paul the concurrence We have N.W.2d H. Anderson. held an error affects substantial rights when there is reasonable likeli-
hood absence of the error would that the significant jury’s
have effect on the had Reed,
verdict. Petitioner, WEILER, Carol In to convict on the order offense, charged required the State that he prove beyond a reasonable doubt Secretary RITCHIE, Mark Minnesota against a sexual assault G.R. committed State, Respondent, her. defense
when he murdered Severson, Intervenor- Dan “Doc” not sexually at trial was that he did assault Respondent. jury key disputed G.R. The issue for the was whether sexual assault decide A10-1120. No. medical examiner’s testi- occurred. The Supreme of Minnesota. Court mony sexually assaulted was G.R. Sept. presented by only direct evidence In State that a sexual assault occurred.
essence, examiner told the the medical only con- result to reach what