State v. Lea
| Decision Date | 26 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | A20-0042 |
| Parties | State of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Clifford Lamont Lea, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).
Affirmed
Hennepin County District Court
Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and
Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Linda M. Freyer, Assistant County Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)
Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Jennifer Workman Jesness, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Bjorkman, Presiding Judge; Segal, Chief Judge; and Bratvold, Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
In this direct appeal from a final judgment of conviction for first-degree criminal sexual conduct, appellant claims the district court and prosecuting attorneys committed prejudicial errors that entitle him to a new trial. Appellant raises three challenges: (1) the district court failed to advise the complainant about her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination; (2) the district court abused its discretion by admitting Spreigl evidence;1 and (3) prosecutorial misconduct affected the jury verdict. Because appellant lacks standing to assert the complainant's constitutional rights, the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of a prior assault by appellant, and the complained-of prosecutorial misconduct was either not misconduct or harmless error, we affirm.
Respondent State of Minnesota charged appellant Clifford Lamont Lea with first-degree criminal sexual conduct (penetration by force or coercion) under Minn. Stat. § 609.342, subd. 1(e)(i) (2018). The following summarizes the evidence received during the jury trial.
In July 2018, Lea met B.S. through an internet dating application. After exchanging messages for a few days, they met in person and began dating. B.S. described their relationship as "friends with benefits," meaning that their relationship was sexual. At that time, B.S. worked in Rochester for "Alternative to Traditional Incarceration of Citizens" (ATTIC), as a case manager of parolees in transitional housing. B.S. understood that her employer prohibited personal relationships between staff and ATTIC residents to avoid conflicts of interest.
B.S. did not realize that, when they started dating, Lea was an ATTIC resident in the Twin Cities. Once B.S. learned where Lea was living, she did not meet him at his ATTIC residence. But a few weeks after they started dating, Lea moved to a new residence in Minneapolis that a different company operated. Because of Lea's move, B.S. believed she no longer had a conflict of interest, and she began visiting Lea at his new residence.
B.S. testified that she and Lea engaged in consensual sexual relations, which she described as sometimes "freaky" and involving "love bites." B.S. also related two incidents to describe her relationship with Lea. First, B.S. regularly saw her medical providers because she was recovering from a stroke that happened before she met Lea. One time, Lea picked her up from a medical appointment and then pressured her to have sex, but she declined. Second, in October, B.S. slept with Lea at his place, but they did not have sex. The next morning, Lea expected "some sort of sexual activity." B.S. declined and Lea became "quite physical" with her by holding her down and putting his hands near her neck. B.S. believed that Lea "was going to . . . rape [her] or something." Lea eventually let her up and "laughed it off." B.S. told Lea that type of behavior "wasn't acceptable." Still, they continued their relationship because B.S. felt Lea "understood." But they saw each other less often.
On November 25, Lea sent a text message to B.S. and invited her to come over to help him with "something." B.S. hesitated but packed an overnight bag and went to Lea's house. When she arrived, B.S. told Lea that "sex wasn't on the table" that night, in part, because she was seeing someone new. They watched a football game in Lea's bedroom, and B.S. started setting up her computer to help him with a resume, because she understoodthat was what he wanted. Lea said he no longer needed her help, so B.S. began packing up her things and told him she was going home.
Lea stood up, told B.S., "no, you're not," and instructed B.S. to take off her clothes. B.S. testified that this was not uncommon, because there were "rules" when she visited Lea. Lea often told B.S. to take her clothes off and remain naked in his bedroom. B.S. also explained that Lea would not allow her to put on clothes when using the bathroom, even though other residents shared the bathroom.
B.S. "just complied" and got into Lea's bed because she did not want to upset him. Lea also undressed, got into bed, and tried to begin intercourse. B.S. felt uneasy and told him, "no." Lea persisted and, ultimately, vaginally penetrated B.S. over her objection. B.S. did not physically resist, but tried to leave. Lea told her to get back into bed. B.S. obeyed and fell asleep. B.S. again tried to leave the next morning, but Lea refused to let her dress or leave. B.S. tried to go to the bathroom, but Lea told her to get back into bed. They began to argue.
As B.S. sat on the bed, Lea demanded anal or oral sex from her. Lea rolled B.S. onto her stomach, placed his body on top of B.S., and started to choke her with his left hand. B.S. fought back and banged on the wall; she cried and screamed "no" while trying to keep her legs together. Lea forced her legs apart and pressed on her windpipe using his forearm, making it difficult for her to breathe. B.S. resisted and Lea bit her on the shoulder blade repeatedly. B.S. thought he was trying to "brand[]" her.
B.S. believed she might die, so she stopped resisting and put her hands up to show that she would comply. Lea forcibly penetrated B.S. anally. Because she was in pain, B.S.asked to retrieve personal lubricant from her purse and Lea let her. Lea resumed and B.S. believed that he was recording her with his cell-phone camera. B.S. testified that Lea penetrated her for about 20 minutes. Lea called B.S. derogatory names and threatened her family if she told anyone about what happened.
B.S. tried to leave yet again. Lea refused, but this time allowed her to use the bathroom. B.S. finally left Lea's residence after she convinced him that she had a medical appointment. As B.S. collected her belongings, Lea laughed and said, "submission looks good on [you]." After B.S. left, Lea called her cell phone and sent her text messages. Lea also sent B.S. a photograph of a map showing her relative's home. B.S. interpreted this as a threat.
B.S. went to the police station and gave a detailed report about the sexual assault and then went to a hospital for a sexual-assault examination. Medical testimony established B.S.'s injuries, which included abrasions to her genitalia, bruises across her body, and bite marks on her back. Forensic testimony established that the DNA on swabs from B.S.'s body matched Lea's DNA profile.
On her way to the police station, B.S. spoke with her ATTIC supervisor, G.C., disclosed her relationship with Lea, and described the sexual assault. B.S. told G.C. that she feared losing her job because Lea had once been an ATTIC resident. After their conversation ended, G.C., who was in charge of Lea's current residence through a different employer, contacted Lea's parole agent. An arrest warrant followed, and Lea was taken into custody for violating parole. During police interviews, Lea admitted having sex with B.S. on November 25 and 26, but maintained it was consensual.
Before trial, the state filed a Spreigl notice and moved to admit evidence of Lea's 2016 domestic-assault-by-strangulation conviction, which involved another woman, P.R. The district court overruled Lea's objections and admitted the Spreigl evidence.
The state called 11 witnesses and offered about 60 exhibits during trial, most of which is summarized above. The state's evidence included testimony from P.R., a certified copy of Lea's prior conviction, and his petition to plead guilty to that offense. Lea exercised his right to remain silent and called no witnesses. The jury found Lea guilty of first-degree criminal sexual conduct.
Lea waived a jury trial on aggravated sentencing factors and the district court granted, in part, the state's motion for an upward departure from the sentencing guidelines on a stipulated record. Based on two aggravating factors, the district court sentenced Lea to 300 months in prison, with ten years of conditional release. Lea appeals.
After opening statements and just before B.S. took the stand, Lea's counsel urged the district court to advise B.S. of her rights under the Fifth Amendment. Lea's counsel insisted that B.S.'s relationship with Lea while he was an ATTIC resident would likely have adverse consequences for B.S., both professionally and criminally, including liability for third-degree criminal sexual conduct, see Minn. Stat. § 609.344, subd. 1(m) (2018). The district court refused the request, reasoning that an advisory was unnecessary because B.S. was aware of the possible adverse consequences. Lea argues that the district courterred and that he is entitled to a new trial.
We conclude that Lea lacks standing to raise this issue. Both parties discussed standing in the briefs submitted to this court. Standing is a prerequisite to jurisdiction. Minn. Sands, LLC v. County of Winona, 940 N.W.2d 183, 192 n.9 (Minn. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 1054 (2021). "Jurisdiction is fundamental to the exercise of judicial power" and we review standing de novo. Glaze v. State, 909 N.W.2d 322, 325 (Minn. 2018). Parties in litigation must have standing at...
To continue reading
Request your trial