 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Hakala3/15/2005
Appellant challenges his convictions of and sentence for first-degree criminal sexual conduct, arguing that (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct during trial; and (3) the double upward durational departure imposed by the court was improper. Because we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction and that any prosecutorial misconduct was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, we affirm in part. But, because the district court did not have an opportunity to consider the implications of Blakely v. Washington, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004), in sentencing appellant, we reverse in part and remand.
FACTS
On May 31, 2003, S.T. went to Reaney's Bar in St. Paul, where she socialized with appellant Robert Stanley Hakala. At the end of the evening, appellant offered to give S.T. a ride home, and they got into a white pickup truck parked near the bar. According to S.T., appellant drove to an alley and pulled the truck into a garage. S.T. testified that appellant then raped her over the course of three or four hours. S.T. stated that appellant choked her, threatened to kill her, and made several racist comments during the attack.
Once appellant fell asleep, S.T. stated that she walked to a nearby police station, where she told an officer that she had been raped. S.T. then led police back to the garage, which matched her description. Later that morning, S.T. went to the hospital for a medical examination, which showed physical evidence consistent with rape. In subsequent forensics tests, semen with DNA matching appellant's was found on S.T.'s vaginal swabs, blood and semen were found on appellant's penile swabs, and a mixture of S.T.'s and appellant's D.N.A. was found on S.T.'s fingernail swabs.
Appellant was charged with two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.342, subd. 1(e)(i) (2002), (count I) and Minn. Stat. § 609.342, subd. 1(c) (2002), (count II). Appellant denied the allegations, stating that he and S.T. had gone back to his apartment, where they had consensual sexual intercourse. Appellant's father, Steven Hakala, told police that appellant was home the previous evening by 12:15 a.m., but also stated that appellant was with his girlfriend "Jenny." Following a jury trial, appellant was found guilty on both counts. The district court sentenced appellant to 288 months in prison on count I, a double upward durational departure. No sentence was imposed on count II. This appeal follows.
DECISION
I.
Appellant first argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. When considering a claim of insufficient evidence, this court's review "is limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did." State v. Webb, 440 N.W.2d 426, 430 (Minn. 1989). The reviewing court must assume "the jury believed the state's witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary." State v. Moore, 438 N.W.2d 101, 108 (Minn. 1989). "This is especially true where resolution of the case depends on conflicting testimony." State v. Pieschke, 295 N.W.2d 580, 584 (Minn. 1980). " conviction may rest on the testimony of a single credible witness," and it is the jury that "determines the weight and credibility of individual witnesses." State v. Miles, 585 N.W.2d 368, 373 (Minn. 1998).
Appellant was found guilty of two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct. The offenses are defined as follows:
A person who engages in se
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|