State of Minnesota v. Karen Sue Butcher ( 2015 )

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A14-0971
State of Minnesota,
Respondent,
vs.
Karen Sue Butcher,
Appellant
Filed March 9, 2015
Affirmed
Worke, Judge
St. Louis County District Court
File No. 69DU-CR-11-3286
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and
Mark S. Rubin, St. Louis County Attorney, Victoria D. Wanta, Assistant County
Attorney, Duluth, Minnesota (for respondent)
Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Sara J. Euteneuer, Assistant
Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Peterson, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and
Connolly, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
WORKE, Judge
Appellant challenges her fifth-degree criminal-sexual-conduct conviction, arguing
that the evidence is insufficient to show that her “intimate parts” made contact with the
complainant. We affirm.
DECISION
A jury found appellant Karen Sue Butcher guilty of fifth-degree criminal sexual
conduct and disorderly conduct. She challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting the criminal-sexual-conduct conviction.
“Whe[n] there is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this court reviews
the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine if the evidence was
sufficient to permit the jury to reach the verdict it did.” State v. Ford, 539 N.W.2d 214,
225 (Minn. 1995). We assume that the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved
contrary evidence. State v. Huss, 506 N.W.2d 290, 292 (Minn. 1993).
If a jury considered circumstantial evidence, this court applies a heightened
standard of review. State v. Porte, 832 N.W.2d 303, 309 (Minn. App. 2013). This
standard includes a two-step analysis to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to
support the conviction. State v. Moore, 846 N.W.2d 83, 88 (Minn. 2014). First, this
court “identif[ies] the circumstances proved,” “assum[ing] that the jury resolved any
factual disputes in a manner that is consistent with the jury’s verdict.” Id. Second, we
“examine independently the reasonableness of the inferences that might be drawn from
the circumstances proved,” and then “determine whether the circumstances proved are
consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.”
Id. (quotations omitted). The evidence is considered as a whole, not each piece in
isolation. State v. Andersen, 784 N.W.2d 320, 332 (Minn. 2010).
Butcher was convicted of fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct. A person is guilty
of fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct if the person engages in nonconsensual sexual
2
“touching by the complainant of the actor’s intimate parts, effected by the actor, if the
action is performed with sexual or aggressive intent.” Minn. Stat. § 609.3451, subd. 1(1)
(2010). “Intimate parts” include “the primary genital area, groin, inner thigh, buttocks,
or breast of a human being.” Minn. Stat. § 609.341, subd. 5 (2010).
Here, on June 7, 2011, while R.R., the owner of a drug store, was kneeling at the
end of an aisle straightening products on a bottom shelf, Butcher approached him from
behind, rubbed her genital area against his back, and asked: “How do you like having
some p---y on your back?” R.R. jumped up and replied: “That’s f---ing gross.”
Butcher concedes that the contact was nonconsensual and that she acted with
sexual intent. She argues, however, that the state failed to prove that she touched her
“intimate parts” to R.R.’s back. She asserts that she has a “protruding stomach” that
prevented her “intimate parts” from making contact with R.R. She claims that because
R.R.’s back was turned, he could not be certain as to what body part touched him.
Butcher also asserts that it is impossible to determine which body part touched R.R. from
the surveillance video because her leg obscures the contact between her body and R.R.
But direct and circumstantial evidence support Butcher’s conviction. R.R.
testified that while he could not see what body part was touching him, it felt like Butcher
rubbed her “groin area.” Additionally, while Butcher rubbed against R.R., she asked:
“How do you like having some p---y on your back?” The surveillance video shows
Butcher walk behind a kneeling R.R., stand behind him, spread her legs wider than
shoulder width apart, and bend her knees so that her knees are directed approximately 45
3
degrees from center. With R.R.’s body slightly between her legs, Butcher then thrusts
her pelvic area forward into R.R.’s back.
Although Butcher claims that her protruding stomach stopped her pelvic area from
touching R.R., the video shows Butcher achieving contact with the upward thrust of her
pelvic area into R.R.’s back. Moreover, intimate parts include the “inner thigh” and the
video shows Butcher’s legs turned out at a 45-degree angle establishing contact between
her inner thighs and R.R.’s back. And R.R. testified that he could feel her legs and her
pelvic area. See Minn. Stat. § 609.347, subd. 1 (2010) (stating that in a fifth-degree
criminal-sexual-conduct prosecution, a victim’s testimony need not be corroborated).
The evidence sufficiently supports Butcher’s conviction.
Affirmed.
4