Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Boehl

June 7, 2005

STATE OF MINNESOTA, RESPONDENT,
v.
CHARLES EDWARD BOEHL, APPELLANT.



St. Louis County District Court File No. K3-02-600626.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

I. Whether a defendant's conviction involves aggravating factors that warrant sentencing as a "patterned sex offender" under Minn. Stat. § 609.1352, subd. 1 (1996) (now codified at Minn. Stat. § 609.108, subd. 1 (2004)) is a jury determination in accordance with the Sixth Amendment and Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004).

II. A juvenile adjudication is not a prior qualifying criminal-sexual-conduct conviction triggering the mandatory imposition of a ten-year conditional release term under Minn. Stat. § 609.346, subd. 5 (1996) (now codified at Minn. Stat. § 609.109, subd. 7 (2004).

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hudson, Judge

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded

Considered and decided by Hudson, Presiding Judge; Schumacher, Judge; and Poritsky, Judge.*fn1

OPINION

Appellant Charles Edward Boehl challenges his convictions of first- and second-degree criminal sexual conduct arguing that the district court abused its discretion in admitting Spreigl evidence of a prior incident of indecent exposure. Appellant also challenges his sentence, arguing that (a) the upward durational departure under the patterned-sex-offender statute violated his right to a jury trial under Blakely v. Washington, and (b) a juvenile adjudication is not a prior qualifying criminal-sexual-conduct conviction triggering the mandatory imposition of a ten-year conditional release term. We affirm appellant's conviction, but reverse appellant's sentence and remand for resentencing consistent with this opinion.

FACTS

Following an allegation by then 12-year-old K.M.D. that appellant engaged in sexual conduct with her when she was six or seven years old, the state charged appellant with one count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.342, subd. 1(a) (1996), one count of second-degree criminal sexual conduct in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.343, subd. 1(a) (1996), and one count of second-degree criminal sexual conduct in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.343, subd. 1(h)(iii) (1996).

The district court held a jury trial in April 2003. At trial, the state alleged that appellant engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct with then six- or seven-year-old K.M.D. in 1996. Appellant met K.M.D. through his relationship with K.M.D.'s aunt, Kelly Kridermacher. Appellant and Kridermacher shared an apartment in the spring of 1996. K.M.D. spent the night at Kridermacher's apartment approximately two to three times per week. When Kridermacher was called into work or needed to run errands, she left K.M.D. with appellant. Kridermacher testified that K.M.D. and appellant initially got along, but K.M.D. became quiet and angry in the summer of 1996, stating that she did not enjoy being in appellant's company. In September 1996, appellant and Kridermacher broke off their relationship and appellant moved out of the apartment.

K.M.D. first disclosed that appellant had engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct with her in the summer of 2001. At that time, K.M.D. told Kridermacher that appellant had touched her "like a girl and a guy." Kridermacher did not, however, contact the police and did not inform K.M.D.'s mother.

K.M.D. disclosed appellant's conduct to other family members in November 2001 at a family funeral. Included in the conversation were Patricia Kirkwood, K.M.D.'s grandmother, and Angel Waters, K.M.D.'s aunt. At trial, Kirkwood and Waters testified that K.M.D. told the group that she had "a secret" and that appellant had touched her "down there." Neither witness heard K.M.D. specify where or when the inappropriate contact occurred or the extent of the sexual contact, but both recalled K.M.D. explaining that appellant threatened to hurt her family if she told anyone. Waters phoned K.M.D.'s mother, Joy Daly. Daly testified that K.M.D. told her that appellant "had touched her down there" and "had licked her down there" while she was staying with Kridermacher.

K.M.D.'s family reported the incident, and the case was assigned to Officer Laura Marquardt. Officer Marquardt interviewed K.M.D. in January 2002. According to Officer Marquardt's testimony, K.M.D. told Officer Marquardt that appellant touched her with his hands "down in the vagina" "about 13 times," then clarified that appellant removed her pants and once licked her inside her vagina. K.M.D. also described an additional incident to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.