Unanimous Verdict Requirement Weakened by Published Criminal Sexual Conduct Case

On August 24, 2020, the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued State v. Melvin Epps, A19-1626, holding that the twelve members of a jury need not unanimously agree whether a defendant on trial for first-degree criminal sexual conduct (which carries a presumptive 12-year prison sentence) used force or used coercion in order to convict the defendant for the crime of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree.

Minn. Stat. § 609.342, subd. 1(e)(i) (2018)—which is Minnesota’s first-degree force/coercion criminal sexual conduct statute—provides that an individual can commit the offense of first-degree criminal sexual conduct either by force or by coercion. At the defendant’s jury trial in Epps, the prosecutor argued during their closing argument that the jury could convict the defendant regardless whether they disagreed about whether Epps committed criminal sexual conduct by using force or by using coercion. In other words, the prosecutor argued that half the jury could believe one thing (that Epps used force) and the other half could believe something different (that Epps used coercion) and, despite the disagreement, could “unanimously” convict Epps of criminal sexual conduct.

The defense argued that the prosecutor’s conduct flew in the face of due process and the unanimity requirement—the longstanding requirement that a jury may only convict an individual for a crime where they unanimously agree that the state has proven each element of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court of Appeals disagreed.

The Court of Appeals distinguished “force/coercion” as modes of committing the crime, rather than independent elements of the crime that need to be alleged and proven, holding in a published, binding opinion that a defendant may be charged and convicted of felony first-degree criminal sexual conduct even where the fact-finder disagrees about the mode by which the conduct occurred.

At this point, it is unclear whether the defense will be seeking a petition for review by the Minnesota Supreme Court. If the defense does not pursue an appeal, if the Minnesota Supreme Court opts not to hear this case, or if the Minnesota Supreme Court hears the case and affirms the Court of Appeals, this holding has the potential to bleed into other areas of the law and further weaken the unanimity requirement in criminal trials.

Follow this link to read the full opinion:

https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/Appellate/Court%20of%20Appeals/Standard%20opinions/OPa191626-082420.pdf