State v. Knott
| Decision Date | 13 February 2023 |
| Docket Number | A22-0402 |
| Parties | State of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Andrew Donald Knott, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).
Cook County District Court File No. 16-CR-20-219
Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and
Molly Hicken, Cook County Attorney, Grand Marais, Minnesota (for respondent)
Christina Zauhar, Douglas V. Hazelton, Halberg Criminal Defense, Bloomington, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Gaitas, Presiding Judge; Bratvold Judge; and Larson, Judge.
Appellant challenges his final judgments of conviction for third-, fourth-, and fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct following a jury trial. Appellant argues he is entitled to a new trial because (1) the district court violated his constitutional right to confrontation by requiring face coverings during trial, and (2) the district court abused its discretion by denying appellant's request for the jury to visit the crime scene, excluding some DNA evidence from the victim's clothing, and allowing the state to call a rebuttal witness. Alternatively, he argues that his conviction must be reversed because the record evidence is insufficient to sustain the jury's guilty verdicts.
We conclude that appellant's right to confrontation was not violated, the district court acted within its ample discretion in making the challenged evidentiary rulings, and sufficient record evidence sustains the conviction for third-degree criminal sexual conduct. Thus, we affirm in part. Because we also determine that the district court erred by entering convictions and sentences for the two lesser-included offenses of fourth- and fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct, we do not review the sufficiency of the evidence related to these guilty verdicts. Thus, we reverse in part and remand to vacate the convictions for the lesser-included offenses and leave the guilty verdicts intact.
The following summarizes the evidence received at the jury trial. We observe that the witnesses did not disagree about the events preceding the assault.
In January 2020, appellant Andrew Donald Knott travelled to northern Minnesota with an all-male group of family and friends to go skiing near Lutsen. The group spent the evening of January 24 swimming in the pool at a rented townhome, hanging out at a local bar, and socializing at the townhome. Sometime during the evening, Knott's group met M.F. through her friend, A.S., who was acquainted with some members of Knott's group.
As Knott's group, M.F., and A.S. continued to socialize at the townhome into the early hours of January 25, M.F. became very intoxicated. At trial, M.F. testified that the alcohol "caught up with her," and she became Telling M.F. she should "sleep it off," A.S. helped M.F. to a bedroom on the lower level of the townhome.
The bedroom had a single full-sized bed. One member of Knott's group, J.D., was asleep in the bed when M.F. laid down next to him. A second male slept on the floor between J.D.'s side of the bed and the wall. A.S. testified that sometime later, she checked on M.F. but could not wake her; M.F. mumbled and fell back asleep. At some point after A.S. checked on M.F., a third male entered the bedroom and laid down on the bed behind M.F. so that M.F. was between J.D. and the third male.
M.F. testified that the third male started touching M.F.'s breasts and vagina, both over and under her clothes. He then pulled her to the edge of the bed, pulled off her skirt and tights, and sexually penetrated her with his penis. The third male then replaced her tights and skirt on her body.
During the assault, according to M.F.'s testimony, she could not move or control her body. She testified that she was "like half-asleep, half-awake," and "it felt like a dream to me," "[l]ike I was watching it happen to me." When she awoke in the morning, she realized her skirt was on backwards, and her tights were halfway down her thighs. M.F. left the townhome.
After telling A.S. about the assault, M.F. went to the emergency room and requested a physical exam, saying she had been sexually assaulted while asleep at the townhome.
M.F. reported that she had been drinking before she fell asleep. She also told medical staff that she remembered someone entering the bedroom, removing her clothing, penetrating her vaginally, and then dressing her. A sexual-assault nurse examiner (SANE) conducted a physical examination and collected samples for a sexual-assault kit-forensic evidence was collected from M.F.'s cervix, vagina, rectum, perineum, and mouth.
M.F. reported the assault to the police. M.F. told the responding police officer that the man who assaulted her was "bald" and a "bigger guy." Law enforcement interviewed the group staying at the townhome, photographed the three men who had slept in the bedroom with M.F., and collected a DNA sample from each of them-but Knott was the only one who matched M.F.'s physical description. Knott told a deputy that A.S. and M.F. were drinking a lot of alcohol and that M.F. was "passed out" and "sleeping hard" when he got into bed next to her. Knott denied any sexual contact with M.F. Law enforcement sent the DNA samples, the sexual-assault kit, and M.F.'s skirt and tights to the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) for forensic analysis, which found evidence of Knott's sperm on M.F.'s tights.
In November 2020, respondent State of Minnesota charged Knott with third-degree criminal sexual conduct involving sexual penetration while knowing or having reason to know that the complainant is physically helpless under Minn. Stat. § 609.344, subd. 1(d) (Supp. 2019) (count 1), and fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct involving sexual contact while knowing or having reason to know that the complainant is physically helpless under Minn. Stat. § 609.345, subd. 1(d) (Supp. 2019) (count 2). During trial, the state amended the complaint to add fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct involving nonconsensual sexual contact under Minn. Stat. § 609.3451, subd. 1(1) (Supp. 2019) (count 3).
In pretrial motions, Knott asked the district court to allow the jury to view the crime scene. The district court denied Knott's motion. The state moved to exclude DNA evidence collected from M.F.'s skirt because forensic analysis linked this DNA to a male who was not present on the night of the assault. Over Knott's objection, the district court granted the state's motion after concluding that there was "considerable risk of implied prejudice."
In December 2021, the case was tried to a jury over four days. Before opening statements, Knott asked the district court to allow testifying witnesses to remove their face coverings. The district court denied Knott's request, stating it would not make a "blanket" exception but would reconsider exceptions on an individual basis for "substantial reason[s] that would justify removal." The state called seven witnesses-M.F., A.S., the responding police officer, emergency-room medical staff, and two analysts from the BCA. The state also introduced 18 exhibits, including diagrams and photos of the townhome, the tights M.F. wore that evening, photos of the three males who shared a room with M.F., medical reports, and BCA reports.
Two witnesses from the BCA testified about the DNA samples from M.F.'s sexual-assault kit. The forensic analyst testified that the samples from the sexual-assault kit showed an amount of male DNA present but not enough to conduct DNA analysis. The serologist identified sperm on four areas of M.F.'s tights; a sample from one area was collected for sperm-cell-fraction DNA testing. The major DNA profile from the tights matched Knott's DNA, and that profile "would not be expected to occur more than once in the world population."
Knott called four witnesses and testified in his own defense. Knott's witnesses were friends and family from the ski vacation. Defense witnesses testified to the general events of the evening and corroborated that Knott had shared a bed with M.F. and J.D. J.D. testified that he was sleeping, noticed nothing unusual, and did not witness a sexual assault. Knott testified that he slept next to M.F. on the full-sized bed and did not speak to M.F. He denied having any sexual contact with M.F.
The jury found Knott guilty of the offenses in counts 1, 2, and 3. The warrant of commitment shows that the district court entered judgments of conviction for all three offenses and imposed a sentence for each count. The district court sentenced Knott to 48 months in prison on count 1, 48 months in prison on count 2, and 365 days on count 3- the sentences on counts 2 and 3 to be served concurrently with that on count 1. Knott appeals.
Before opening statements, Knott asked the district court to allow testifying witnesses to remove their face coverings because "the credibility determinations the jury will have to make do sometimes involve facial expressions and body language." The district court denied the request, stating that the "chief justice has ordered that people wear face coverings" in court during the COVID-19 pandemic, as did a local order signed by the trial judge.[1] The district court also stated that it would not "grant a blanket . . . exception for all witnesses at this time," but it would "make an exception" for a specific witness if a "substantial reason . . . would justify removal of the face covering."
For the first time on appeal, Knott argues that...
To continue reading
Request your trial