CASE LAW UPDATE: Whether admission of relationship evidence was proper?
Defendant was convicted of 1st degree criminal sexual conduct. On appeal, defendant argued that (1) admission of relationship evidence was error; and (2) lifetime conditional release was error. The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that evidence that defendant showed pornography to minors constituted sexually manipulative, grooming activity toward minor children that was the type of “domestic conduct” that is relationship evidence under §634.20 of the Minnesota Statutes. However, because defendant was convicted of the 3 counts concurrently, defendant did not have a prior conviction for criminal sexual conduct and could not be subjected to lifetime conditional release.
State v. Hager, A21-0229, (Washington County).
Minnesota Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.