State v. Borden
| Decision Date | 15 May 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. C2-89-1906,C2-89-1906 |
| Citation | 455 N.W.2d 482 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Jeffrey Richard BORDEN, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The admission into evidence of an authentic video depicting the actual events of a sexual performance was not an abuse of discretion.
2. Where the evidence shows that defendant actively encouraged the sexual performance of minors, the evidence is sufficient for conviction under Minn.Stat. Sec. 617.246, subd. 2 (1988).
Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., Paul R. Kempainen, Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Stephen C. Rathke, Crow Wing County Atty., Brainerd, for respondent.
Stephen Patrick Doyle, Doyle and Michales, Minneapolis, for appellant.
Considered and decided by FOLEY, P.J., and RANDALL and SCHULTZ, JJ. *
A wet t-shirt contest conducted by appellant Jeffrey Richard Borden degenerated into a sexual performance. Two minors participated in the contest and the events that followed. Borden was charged with two counts of using minors in a sexual performance in violation of Minn.Stat. Sec. 617.246, subd. 2 (1988).
The case was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict finding Borden guilty on both counts. Borden was sentenced and judgment entered. Borden brings this appeal, alleging the trial court improperly admitted a videotape of the performance into evidence and there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction.
On Saturday, August 20, 1988, a wet t-shirt contest was held at Brainerd International Raceway. The contest was organized by Borden.
In preparation for the contest, Borden prepared printed flyers and obtained scaffolding to use for the stage. An ice cream bucket, with a sign asking for donations, was set outside the front gate. Borden recruited men to act as "bouncers" and provide security during the contest.
On Friday, Borden began to ask women if they were interested in participating in the contest. Several women signed up for the contest. Borden did not inquire as to their ages. One of the women who signed up was 16-year-old S.S. She also signed up her friend, T.T., who was also 16.
Just before the contest was about to begin on Saturday, the five women who were waiting to participate made an agreement that they would not take any clothing off but their shirts. The women told Borden about their decision and he agreed. S.S. and T.T. were not among the five women who made the agreement.
The contest began at approximately 8:00 p.m. on Saturday. The five women who made the agreement got on the stage and the crowd began to cheer. The crowd was estimated to be between 2,000 and 3,000 people, predominately men. Borden began the contest by using a microphone to announce the women's names and occupations. After he introduced each woman, he poured water on the front of her shirt. Some of the women exposed their breasts at this point. The winner was to be determined by the loudness of the crowd when each woman was pointed to by Borden.
S.S. and T.T. appeared on the stage after the contest began. Shortly thereafter, only four women remained on the stage, including S.S. and T.T. The parties agree that the conduct engaged in by the women on the stage constituted a sexual performance. As these acts were taking place, Borden continued to pour water on the women. At trial, Borden testified that he was attempting to pick a winner so that the contest would be over. Borden testified that he felt the contest was out of control and he feared that someone would be injured if he stopped the contest before a winner was named. Finally, a woman was declared the winner and the women were escorted from the stage.
At trial, a videotape of the contest was entered into evidence. The videotape is approximately 45 minutes in length and focuses on the conduct of all the women on the stage, not just the minors. The tape clearly depicts the various types of sexual conduct which took place during the contest.
The tape was played to the jury during the prosecution's case in chief and portions of the tape were shown during the cross-examination of Borden. In addition, the jury was allowed to take the tape with them while they deliberated.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty and Borden appeals from the entry of judgment.
1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by allowing the videotape of the contest into evidence?
2. Was the evidence presented at trial sufficient to uphold Borden's conviction?
Borden alleges that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting into evidence State's Exhibit 2, a videotape of the wet t-shirt contest. Borden argues that its prejudicial and inflammatory effect outweighed its probative value.
Borden cites the following facts as supporting his argument: (1) many of the scenes in the videotape did not depict the minors participating in the sexual performances, but only adults; (2) the video had explicit scenes of the minors engaging in various types of sexual conduct; (3) during the cross-examination of Borden, the prosecution stopped the videotape at selected scenes; and (4) the jury was allowed to take the tape with them while deliberating.
Minn.R.Evid. 403 governs the admission and exclusion of evidence and states the following:
Although relevant, 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.
The admission of photographs in a criminal trial is in the discretion of the trial court judge and the defendant must show an abuse of that discretion to subject the trial court's finding to reversal. State v. Hatton, 396 N.W.2d 63, 66 (Minn.App.1986), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Jan. 16, 1987), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 911, 107 S.Ct. 3180, 96 L.Ed.2d 669 (1987). Photographs are not rendered inadmissible because they incidentally tend to arouse the passion or prejudice of the jury. State v. Durfee, 322 N.W.2d 778, 785-86 (Minn.1982); State v. DeZeler, 230 Minn. 39, 47, 41 N.W.2d 313, 319 (1950).
A trial is a search for the truth. The jury should not be required to recreate in their minds the crime and surrounding events when a videotape, whose authenticity is undisputed, is available. This videotape allowed the jury to witness the actual crime and to base their judgment upon their own eyewitness interpretation of Borden's actions. The videotape minimized the ability of counsel, for both sides, to obscure the issues by skillful questioning and presentation of evidence. This is as it should be.
The videotape that is the subject of this appeal is the authentic photographic depiction of the events which took place at Brainerd International Raceway. This differs substantially from a video portraying a reenactment of a crime. Reenactments may be subject to greater limitations in their admissibility, based upon reliability and their usefulness to the jury.
Borden argues that the trial court should have used some alternative method of presenting the videotape, such as editing or reducing certain key portions to still photographs. Borden did not request any of these measures at trial. Borden also failed to object at trial to the jury's use of the tape during deliberations. It is not incumbent upon the trial court to sua sponte limit the use of legitimate evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the videotape into evidence or in allowing the prosecution unlimited use of the exhibit.
Borden asserts that the evidence adduced at trial failed to sufficiently show evidence of his intent as required by Minn.Stat. Sec. 617.246 (1988). Borden concedes he need not have been aware of the minor's age to be guilty of violating the statute. See Minn.Stat. Sec. 617.246, subd. 5; State v. Fan, 445 N.W.2d 243, 247-48 (Minn.App.1989), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Oct. 31, 1989), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 1480, 108 L.Ed.2d 617 (1990).
Minn.Stat. Sec. 617.246, subd. 2 (1988) provides:
It is unlawful for a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Buswell, s. C5-89-555
...only themselves, but, as well, other patrons, is presented in Rieger v. Zackoski, 321 N.W.2d 16 (Minn.1982). See also State v. Borden, 455 N.W.2d 482 (Minn.App.1990).2 Originally the state took the position (1) that each respondent had consented to the search made, and (2) that Gateley foun......
-
Doe v. Brainerd Intern. Raceway, Inc., C4-93-1734
...flyers had been distributed, a large banner had been posted proclaiming it and a stage constructed for it. In State v. Borden, 455 N.W.2d 482 (Minn.App.1990), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. July 13, 1990), in which this court upheld the criminal conviction of one of the male organizers of this......
-
People v. Aponte, 91CA1663
...recording and accompanying transcript of conversation between defendant and agent in which the bribery was offered); State v. Borden, 455 N.W.2d 482 (Minn.App.1990) (there being no objection, it was proper for jury to take into deliberations videotape of wet t-shirt contest in which two min......
-
State v. Hunter, No. A05-2375 (Minn. App. 8/15/2006)
...rule for invalid no-knock provisions should be applied in Minnesota has not been briefed to this court. See generally State v. Borden, 455 N.W.2d 482, 486 (Minn. App. 1990) (declining to address constitutional issue not briefed or argued on appeal), review denied (Minn. July 13, 1990). And ......