![]() Patterson argues that because there are conceivably three factual scenarios Jury to weigh the credibility of the witnesses." State v. Where testimony is conflicting, "it is the exclusive function of the Of the complainant's breasts or buttocks (whether through clothing or not). With sexual or aggressive intent, including intentional touching by the actor "Sexual contact," for the purposes of this subdivision consists of acts done 1(a) (1998) reads, in pertinent part:Ī person who engages in sexual contact with another person is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the second degree if * * * (a) the complainant is under 13 years of age and the actor is more than 36 months older than the complainant. That this presumption be overcome by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, thisĬourt will not overturn the verdict if the jury "could reasonably conclude thatĪ defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged." State v.Īlton, 432 N.W.2d 754, 756 (Minn. Provided that the juryĪcted with due regard for the presumption of innocence and for the requirement The court must assume that "the jury believed the state's witnessesĪnd disbelieved any evidence to the contrary." State v. Was "sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did." The evidence "in a light most favorable to the conviction" to determine if it When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, thisĬourt's review is limited to "a painstaking analysis of the record," viewing Participation in treatment programs, and required Patterson to register as a Imposed conditions on juvenile contact and substance use, required Imposition for 10 years, sentenced Patterson to 365 days in the workhouse, A juryĪcquitted him on the two solicitation charges but found him guilty on theĬriminal sexual conduct charge. 1(a) (1996), and two counts of solicitation of a child to engage Second-degree criminal sexual conduct in violation of Minn. Patterson was charged in Hennepin County District Court with one count of Two police officers arrived and took Patterson TheĪgent handcuffed Patterson, took him to the park building, and called the There, the agent found a bottle of strawberry daiquiri. Odor of an alcoholic beverage on his breath. Although Patterson denied having any alcohol, the agent could smell the The park agent encountered Patterson, who fit the description the children had Park agent that a man was offering alcohol to minors by the waterfall area. He had given them some "strawberry pop." The children were nervous and scared.īased on the children's behavior and the information they provided, theĭirector suspected that the man had offered them alcohol. Informed the park director that they were having problems with a man and that corroborated J.D.'s testimony that Patterson touchedĪfter leaving Patterson's company, the children ran to the park building and She also testified that he touched her left buttock inĪ circular motion. testified that Patterson touched her breastsįor about ten seconds. Although Patterson denied that he touched any of That after he took the alcohol away from the children and refused to give itīack, the children became upset, pleaded with him to return it to them, and Patterson's company because they became scared. All fourĬhildren testified that Patterson gave them the alcohol and that they left ![]() Was evidence that some of the children were drinking and smoking. The children and Patterson were together for approximately one hour.ĭuring that time, they remained near a waterfall-like area in the park. Park together where the girls met S.P.'s brother, age 13, and A.E., age 9. The girls followed himĪnd when Patterson emerged from the liquor store, the group walked back to the Walked to a liquor store to buy alcohol and cigarettes. Patterson waited a short time for his friend, who never arrived. Patterson and theĬhildren did not previously know each other, but the girls led him to the poolĪrea. ![]() To meet a friend by the pool in Webber Park when he encountered three girls: On August 21, 1997, appellant Bruce Edward Patterson had gone Overturned, or, in the alternative, that he be granted a new trial. Stuart, State Public Defender, Marie Wolf, Assistant State Publicĭefender, 2829 University Avenue Southeast, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55414 (for appellant)Ĭonsidered and decided by Lansing, Presiding Judge, Randall, Judge, and Short,Īppellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictionįor second-degree criminal sexual conduct. Lynch, Assistant CountyĪttorney, C-2000 Government Center, Minneapolis, MN 55487 (for respondent) Paul, MN 55101 andĪmy Klobuchar, Hennepin County Attorney, Mary M. Hatch, Attorney General, 1400 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |