State v. John

1

State of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Dennis Michael St. John, Jr., Appellant.

No. A22-0755

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

May 1, 2023

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

Carlton County District Court File No. 09-CR-20-1141

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Lydia Villalva Lijo, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Lauri A. Ketola Carlton County Attorney, Carlton, Minnesota (for respondent)

Kevin M. Gregorius, Meshbesher & Associates, P.A., Minneapolis Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Smith, Tracy M., Presiding Judge; Bratvold, Judge; and Cochran, Judge.

Smith Tracy M., Judge

In this direct appeal, appellant Dennis Michael St. John, Jr., challenges his convictions for three counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, one count of kidnapping, and one count of domestic assault. He asserts that the district court erred by (1) denying his motion to suppress cell site location information collected pursuant to a search warrant, (2) granting the prosecution's motion under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 9.02 to collect a saliva sample, (3) admitting expert testimony about the dynamics of domestic abuse, (4) admitting recordings of the 911 calls reporting the incident, (5) admitting evidence of a prior sexual assault by appellant, (6) excluding evidence about the alleged victim's prior sexual conduct, and (7) admitting evidence of appellant's prior controlled-substance conviction for impeachment. We affirm.

FACTS

Respondent State of Minnesota charged St. John with six criminal counts arising out of his alleged physical and sexual assaults of K.-K. while holding her against her will at his home from Friday, July 17 until Sunday, July 19, 2020. Those counts included first-degree criminal sexual conduct, kidnapping and domestic assault. The following facts are derived from St. John's jury trial.

Incident

K.-K. testified that, on Friday, July 17, she met up with St. John at a casino. The two had an ongoing sexual relationship, although K.-K. had tried before to end that relationship. After a while at the casino, K.-K. and St. John left and drove separately to St. John's house. At his house, K.-K. left her keys and her phone in her car. The two smoked marijuana and had consensual, vaginal sex. Afterward, C.D., a friend of St. John's, and A.D., an acquaintance, came over for a short visit and then left.

K.-K. tried to leave with C.D. and A.D., but St. John shut the door and began hitting her, saying "paybacks are a bitch." He then dragged K.-K. to the living room, cut off her shirt and bra with a knife, and took off her underwear and put them in his pocket.

For the next 36 hours, St. John kept K.-K. trapped in his house, remaining close to her and keeping her in eyesight when she went to the bathroom. During this time, St. John sexually assaulted K.-K. at least six times, inserting his penis into her vagina and anus and making her give him oral sex. He beat her with his fists, elbows, and knees. He also headbutted her. St. John threatened to kill K.-K. and her family and showed her pictures of her children on his cellphone. He also came at her with a knife. He forced her to smoke methamphetamine to stay awake.

During this time, on Saturday night, one of St. John's friends, A.G., came over with food and water. K.-K. tried to get A.G. to help her by mouthing silently to call 911, but A.G. left without responding.

K.-K. escaped on Sunday morning. She noticed that St. John had left the side door open a crack when he let the dog out. K.-K. ran through the open door to her car and drove to Proctor, where two of her children lived with their grandparents. K.-K. was screaming and crying while she was driving because she was afraid that St. John would kill her children.

Upon arriving at the grandparents' residence, K.-K. was still screaming. She told the grandparents that she had been assaulted, and they called 911. K.-K. told the 911 operator what had happened to her. A couple of minutes later, a police officer called K.-K. back, and K.-K., pursuant to the officer's instructions, went to the hospital where she had a sexual-assault-nurse-examiner (SANE) examination. The SANE examination revealed that K.-K. had extensive bruising on her body and one laceration and one abrasion on her external genitalia.

The state also presented testimony from Scott Miller, an expert in the field of the dynamics of domestic violence; recordings of phone calls in which K.-K. reported the incident; testimony from St. John's former girlfriend, R.G., about his sexual assault of her; and evidence related to St. John's and K.-K.'s cellphone locations and calls.

St. John testified in his defense. He denied having nonconsensual sex with K.-K. and holding her against her will. According to St. John, he and K.-K. did methamphetamine, smoked marijuana, and had rough consensual sex throughout the weekend. On Saturday, after A.G. came over, St. John left K.-K. at his home and purchased methamphetamine from his cousin, D.R. Then, around midnight or 1 a.m. on Sunday, St. John and K.-K. got into an argument because K.-K. had taken his mother's jewelry. He said that they "got into a domestic" and that he slapped and hit her between six and ten times. St. John testified that K.-K. hit him as well. After the fight, they fell asleep. The next morning, he heard a door opening and K.-K.'s car leaving.

Three other witnesses testified for the defense. St. John's cousin D.R. testified that he sold St. John methamphetamine on Saturday and that K.-K. made up the charges so that she could get into battered women's housing. St. John and K.-K.'s friend S.B. testified that she introduced K.-K. to St. John because K.-K. was interested in "rough sex." Finally, a Cloquet detective testified that D.R. had provided her consistent information about D.R.'s selling St. John methamphetamine on Saturday and about K.-K.'s desire for battered women's housing.

Verdict and Sentencing

The jury found St. John guilty of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (great bodily harm) under Minnesota Statutes section 609.342, subdivision 1(c) (Supp. 2019); first-degree criminal sexual conduct (dangerous weapon) under Minnesota Statutes section 609.342, subdivision 1(d) (Supp. 2019); first-degree criminal sexual conduct (force or coercion) under Minnesota Statutes section 609.342, subdivision 1(c)-(d), (e)(i) (Supp. 2019); kidnapping to commit great bodily harm under Minnesota Statutes section 609.25, subdivision 1(3) (2018); and domestic assault under Minnesota Statutes section 609.2242, subdivision 1 (2018). The jury acquitted St. John of one count of kidnapping to facilitate commission of a felony under Minnesota Statutes section 609.25, subdivision 1(2) (2018). The jury also found three "heinous elements" related to the criminal sexual conduct, see Minn. Stat. § 609.3455, subd. 1(d) (2022), and that, in relation to the kidnapping, K.-K. had not been released in a "safe place," see Minn. Stat. § 609.25, subd. 2(2) (2018).

The district court sentenced St. John to concurrent terms of 98 months in prison for the count of kidnapping and not leaving the victim in a safe place, see Minn. Stat. § 609.25, subd. 2(2), and life without the possibility of release for the count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (bodily harm), based on the three heinous elements found by the jury, see Minn. Stat. § 609.3455, subd. 2(a)(1) (2022) (requiring mandatory life sentence without release if the fact finder determines that two or more heinous elements exist).

St. John appeals.

DECISION

St John argues that the seven errors he asserts on appeal deprived him of a fair trial and entitle him to a new trial. We address each of his arguments in turn.

I. The district court did not err by admitting cell site location information.

St. John contends that the district court erred by denying suppression of cell site location information relating to St. John's phone, which was acquired pursuant to a search warrant. He argues that the warrant was not supported by probable cause. We disagree.

"A [search] warrant is supported by probable cause if, on the totality of the circumstances, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place." State v. Holland, 865 N.W.2d 666, 673 (Minn. 2015) (quotation omitted). Appellate courts must "determine whether there was a substantial basis to conclude that probable cause existed," and that "inquiry is limited to the information presented in the affidavit supporting the warrant." Id. (quotation omitted). "When reviewing a pretrial order on a motion to suppress, [appellate courts] review the district court's determination of probable cause de novo." Id.

The affidavit in support of the warrant application stated that K.-K. "had been raped, threatened with a knife threatened with a flashlight bat, and held against her will by . . . St. John . . . at his residence." The affidavit also stated that "the incident began at . . . St John's house on Friday, July 17, 2020 and ended after [K.-K] was able to leave through an unlocked door at St John's residence approximately thirty minutes before she called dispatch (July 19, 2020)." The warrant stated that cellphone numbers for which the location information was sought were linked to St. John and K.-K., and that "the cell site and location information would assist in establishing a timeline and corroborating information obtained during the investigation." We conclude that, under the totality of the circumstances, there was a fair probability that evidence of K.-K.'s kidnapping- specifically, evidence that would confirm that St. John and K.-K. were at St. John's...