Doe v. Liebsch, A14–0275.

• Decision Date: 30 December 2015
• Docket Number: No. A14–0275.,A14–0275.
• Citation: 872 N.W.2d 875
• Parties: Jane DOE 136, Appellant, v. Ralph LIEBSCH, Respondent.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

872 N.W.2d 875

Jane DOE 136, Appellant,

v.Ralph LIEBSCH, Respondent.

No. A14–0275.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Dec. 30, 2015.

Jeffrey R. Anderson, Gregg Meyers, Michael G. Finnegan, Jeff Anderson & Associates, PA, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for appellant.

James T. Martin, Julian C. Janes, Gislason, Martin, Varpness & Janes, PA, Edina, Minnesota, for respondent.

Darrell L. Heckman, Harris, Meyer, Heckman & Denkewalter, LLC, Urbana, Ohio, for amicus curiae National Center for Victims of Crime.

OPINION

ANDERSON, Justice.

The question presented by this case is whether the district court abused its discretion when it excluded evidence of an Alford plea entered during a previous criminal proceeding regarding the same course of conduct from being considered in a subsequent civil trial. The civil jury found respondent Ralph Liebsch not liable for sexual assault and battery against appellant Jane Doe 136. The court of appeals affirmed. Because we conclude that the district court acted within its discretion, we affirm.

Doe first encountered Liebsch in the summer of 2000, when Doe was 7 years old. At that time, Liebsch owned a largely unimproved lot on White Bear Lake that was adjacent to Doe's childhood home. Doe's childhood friend and former neighbor testified that Liebsch spent more time than usual at his lot that summer to repair storm damage to the roof of his garage. Doe's friend testified that he saw Liebsch kiss Doe on the lips. That summer, Doe also told her friend that Liebsch "put his tongue in her mouth and it was gross." Four years later, Doe disclosed to two of her cousins that Liebsch "had touched her vagina and fingered her, used his fingers to touch her and it hurt, and he kissed her on the lips." Over the next few years, one of the cousins urged Doe to tell somebody about the alleged assault. Doe eventually reported the assault to her parents in 2008.

In June 2008 investigators from the White Bear Lake Police Department questioned Liebsch regarding the alleged sexual assault, and Liebsch denied any involvement or knowledge. A few months later, Liebsch was charged with first-and second-degree criminal sexual conduct, Minn.Stat. §§ 609.342, subd. 1, 609.343, subd. 1(a) (2014). Liebsch pleaded not guilty, and the case proceeded to trial. On the second day of trial, the district court declared a mistrial when Doe's mother suggested that Liebsch had previously committed sexual misconduct.

Prior to a second trial, in January 2010, Liebsch pleaded guilty to fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct, Minn.Stat. § 609.3451, subd. 1 (2014),¹ and the State dismissed the felony criminal sexual conduct charges. As permitted by North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), Liebsch's plea did not include an admission of guilt. Instead, Liebsch admitted that, "if the jury were to believe the witnesses in this case, ... there's a reasonable probability that [he] might be found guilty." The district court clarified that Liebsch was "not admitting to the facts" supporting his guilt, but rather was admitting "there's a reasonable likelihood that [he] might be found guilty." The court accepted Liebsch's plea "pursuant to the Alford case" and concluded that "the facts ... substantiate the case as is required under the Alford case." Liebsch later stated that he entered the plea in order to "avoid the risk of significant jail time and a large fine, the anguish and expense of another trial," and to obtain "closure on a painful ordeal."

Doe sued Liebsch in February 2011, alleging that he committed sexual battery and sexual abuse based on the conduct that gave rise to the criminal charges. The complaint alleged that Liebsch "pled guilty to criminal sexual conduct in the 5th degree." In his answer, Liebsch admitted entering a guilty plea, but denied all allegations that he committed sexual abuse. Prior to the start of trial, Liebsch brought a motion in limine to prevent Doe from introducing evidence of the Alford plea. Doe opposed the motion, arguing that the court should allow the Alford plea to be introduced into evidence, and that Liebsch could then explain why he entered the plea.²

The district court granted Liebsch's motion under Minn. R. Evid. 403. The court noted that a defendant may have several reasons for pleading guilty while maintaining innocence, such as "avoid[ing] the possibility of a longer prison sentence" and "avoid[ing] ... civil liability." The court excluded evidence of the Alford plea because it "contains an admission by [Liebsch] only that a jury might find him guilty," and therefore "any mention of the Alford plea would be substantially more prejudicial to [Liebsch] than probative to [Doe]'s case."

The civil case proceeded to a jury trial. During his direct examination, Liebsch testified that he always denied that he sexually abused Doe. Doe's counsel argued that this statement "open[ed] the door ... to talk about the Alford plea." The district court concluded that Liebsch's statement did not contradict his Alford plea because the plea did not include an admission of the facts that establish guilt. Later, during closing arguments, Liebsch's counsel asserted that Doe introduced no evidence that contradicted Liebsch's version of the relevant events. The jury found Liebsch not liable for sexual assault and battery, and the district court denied Doe's motion for a new trial. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it balanced the Alford plea's limited probative value against its danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues. Doe v. Liebsch, 856 N.W.2d 699, 703–04 (Minn.App.2014).

I.

First, we determine whether the district court abused its discretion when it excluded the use of Liebsch's Alford plea as substantive evidence under Minn. R. Evid. 403. We afford the district court broad discretion when ruling on evidentiary matters, and we will not reverse the district court absent an abuse of that discretion. Peterson v. BASF Corp., 711 N.W.2d 470, 482 (Minn.2006). "[B]y their very nature, evidentiary rules demand a case by case analysis, an analysis best left to the trial judge familiar with the ‘setting’ of the case." Benson v. N. Gopher Enters., Inc., 455 N.W.2d 444, 446 (Minn.1990). But the erroneous exclusion of evidence is grounds for a new trial unless the exclusion was harmless. See Becker v. Mayo Found., 737 N.W.2d 200, 214 (Minn.2007).

A.

An Alford plea is a plea in which "[a]n individual accused of [a] crime may voluntarily, knowingly, and understandingly consent to the imposition of a prison sentence" while not admitting guilt. Alford, 400 U.S. at 37, 91 S.Ct. 160. An Alford plea is an appealing resolution for defendants who, despite maintaining their innocence, have "nothing to gain by a trial and much to gain by pleading," such as avoiding a harsher sentence. Id. Because an Alford plea does not rely on an admission of guilt, the record must contain "strong evidence of actual guilt." Id.; see 5 Wayne R. LaFave et al., Criminal Procedure § 21.4(f), at 846–47 (3d ed. 2007) ("[T]he factual basis must be significantly more certain than will suffice in other circumstances.").

We formally adopted the use of Alford pleas in State v. Goulette, 258 N.W.2d 758, 760 (Minn.1977), holding that:

"[A] trial court may accept a plea of guilty by an accused even though the accused claims he is innocent if the court, on the basis of its interrogation of the accused and its analysis of the factual basis offered in support of the plea, reasonably concludes that there is evidence which would support a jury verdict of guilty and that the plea is voluntarily, knowingly, and understandingly entered."

Because the accuracy of a plea may be at issue when the defendant does not admit guilt, we have recommended that district courts "have the defendant specifically acknowledge on the record at the plea hearing that the evidence the State would likely offer against him is sufficient for a jury, applying a reasonable doubt standard, to find the defendant guilty of the offense to which he is pleading guilty." State v. Theis, 742 N.W.2d 643, 649 (Minn.2007) ; see Goulette, 258 N.W.2d at 761 (stating that a district court "should not cavalierly accept" an Alford plea without verifying that the factual basis for the plea is strong).

A conviction based upon an Alford plea generally carries the same penalties and collateral consequences as a conventional guilty plea. 5 LaFave et al., supra, § 21.4(f), at 848–49; see, e.g., Burrell v. United States, 384 F.3d 22, 31 (2d Cir.2004) (admitting a conviction obtained via an Alford plea as evidence of a prior felony conviction under the federal felon-in-possession statute); Blohm v. Comm'r, 994 F.2d 1542, 1554 (11th Cir.1993) (concluding that a conviction for tax evasion based on an Alford plea collaterally estopped the defendant from denying tax liability); People v. Miller, 91 N.Y.2d 372, 670 N.Y.S.2d 978, 694 N.E.2d 61, 64 (1998) (allowing the prosecution to cross-examine the defendant about a previous Alford plea for impeachment purposes); Armenakes v. State, 821 A.2d 239, 242 (R.I.2003) (noting that a conviction obtained via an Alford plea "may be used later for any legitimate purpose, including sentencing factors and enhancement, impeachment, and in collateral proceedings, such as deportation.").

B.

The district court excluded the use of Liebsch's Alford plea as substantive evidence under Minn. R. Evid. 403, which provides that "evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." Evidence has probative value "when it, in some degree, advances the inquiry." State v. Schulz, 691 N.W.2d 474, 478 (Minn.2005). This probative value is balanced against the "unfair advantage that results from the capacity of the evidence...