State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Lee Hill

Minneapolis, Minnesota criminal defense lawyers represented the Defendant charged with first-degree criminal sexual conduct.



The incident at issue here occurred at a subsidized senior living apartment building in Minneapolis on May 11, 2020. Hill entered the lobby at around noon and asked a building employee, M.K., for a rent application. M.K. recognized Hill, who had visited the apartment building multiple times before and had requested a rent application each time. Later, M.K. testified that during each of these previous encounters with Hill, she had felt uneasy.



C.L., who worked as a manager at the building, intervened and told M.K. that she would handle Hill's request. C.L. asked Hill to wait in the lobby while she retrieved an application. When she returned to the lobby moments later, she saw Hill walking unaccompanied down a hallway. After C.L. instructed Hill to return to the lobby, he asked to see a vacant apartment. C.L. took Hill to see an empty unit near the lobby.



When they entered the apartment, Hill stood near the bathroom, and he asked C.L. about the bathroom. C.L. later testified that she believed Hill wanted to get her into the bathroom because he could have disabled her more easily there. Rather than entering the bathroom, C.L. pointed out a closet to Hill. Suddenly, Hill pushed C.L. into the closet, causing her to fall to the floor. Hill then leaned over C.L. and choked her with both of his hands. C.L. screamed for help, pounded on the closet wall, and tried to scratch Hill's face.



M.K. heard C.L. screaming, called 911, and began kicking the door to the apartment, which was locked. C.L. later testified that she did not lock the door when she entered the apartment with Hill.



As Hill continued to choke C.L., she said, "You need to stop." Hill's face "went blank," and he stopped choking C.L. Both Hill and C.L. got up. Hill then pulled out a knife, first pointing the blade toward C.L. but then turning it around as if to hand it to her. C.L. took the knife. Hill then left the apartment, repeatedly saying, "I'm sorry."



M.K. and C.L. escorted Hill out of the apartment building. C.L. estimated that the incident in the vacant apartment lasted "less than five minutes." During that time, Hill did not touch C.L.'s intimate parts, attempt to undress her or himself, or make any sexual comments. C.L. later testified that Hill did not have an opportunity to touch her intimate parts or to do anything sexual because she was fighting back. After the incident, C.L.'s neck was red and bruised, and she experienced pain in her neck and body.



Police arrested Hill two days later. Following a Miranda warning, two police investigators asked Hill what happened on the day of the assault. Hill responded, "[F]or some reason my dick got really hard." He admitted to assaulting C.L. in the closet of the vacant unit and told the investigators that he "thought about raping her" but "didn't follow through." Hill stated, "I stopped. I thought I was supposed to do it, but the way she was acting didn't seem correct, so I stopped and walked out." The investigators asked Hill about his purpose for going to the apartment building-whether he was "looking at the apartment or . . . planning to rape" C.L. Hill replied, "Um I was like thinking

about . . . [r]aping her." An investigator asked why Hill "[did] all that." Hill replied, "'Cause I was thinking about sex."



* * *



Legal issue Does Minnesota's corpus delicti statute require independent evidence of both intent and a substantial step for convicting attempt crimes, such as attempted first-degree criminal sexual conduct?

Headnote



CRIMINAL LAW. CONFESSIONS AND CORPUS DELICTI. The case addresses whether the corpus delicti statute in Minnesota, which prevents a conviction based solely on a defendant's confession, applies equally to attempted crimes as it does to completed crimes. The court concluded that independent evidence reasonably tending to prove the defendant committed the charged attempt offense is sufficient to meet the statute's requirements.



CRIMINAL LAW. ATTEMPTED CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT. The court examined whether sufficient independent evidence existed to support a conviction for attempted first-degree criminal sexual conduct, beyond the defendant's confession, based on the defendant's actions and circumstances suggesting intent and a substantial step towards committing the crime.



CRIMINAL LAW. EVIDENCE AND APPEALS. The court evaluated the standard of evidence necessary to establish corpus delicti for attempt offenses, ultimately determining that independent evidence must always reasonably tend to prove the commission of the charged offense without requiring corroboration of the accused's intent or substantial step separately.



CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. APPELLATE REVIEW AND REMAND. The court decided to reverse and remand the case to the court of appeals for further consideration of additional appellate arguments not addressed initially, exemplifying procedural steps following reversal.



Key Phrases - Corpus delicti statute - Attempted first-degree criminal sexual conduct - Independent evidence - Substantial step - Respondent's confession

Affirmed