Minnesota appeals court overturns conviction of man who said he ‘thought about raping’ victim

The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled Monday that while a St. Paul man admitted to police that he “thought about raping” a woman he was strangling in 2020, that confession alone was not enough to justify the attempted first-degree criminal sexual conduct charge he was convicted of in 2023.

Judge Matthew E. Johnson wrote in the three-judge panel’s 2-1 decision that the prevailing legal statute which justified the decision says: If the state introduces a defendant’s confession into evidence at trial they have to “corroborate the confession by presenting evidence independent of the confession that reasonably tends to prove that the specific crime charged in the complaint actually occurred.”

On May 11, 2020, Nicholas Lee Hill, 44, attacked the housing manager at a subsidized apartment building for seniors in Minneapolis. He had been to the building three or four previous times to request a housing application. The housing manager agreed to show Hill an apartment. Once inside, he shoved her into a large closet and began choking her.

Her screams were heard by a co-worker who called 911 and tried to kick down the door. The housing manager scratched Lee’s face and told him he needed to stop — which he did at that time. He then pulled out a knife and handed it to the housing manager before leaving the apartment, repeatedly saying, “I’m sorry.”

When he was interrogated by police, Hill said he had become aroused and “thought about raping ... whoever that woman was in there,” but her response made him stop.

Hill was tried in Hennepin County District Court on two counts. He was acquitted of attempted first-degree criminal sexual conduct while armed with a dangerous weapon and convicted for attempted first-degree criminal sexual conduct while using force or coercion to cause personal injury.

He was sentenced to 15 years in prison. The appeals court overturned that conviction Monday.

Hill had previously been convicted of felony sexual assault in 2014 and sentenced to 90 months in prison. His earliest release date for the overturned conviction had been scheduled for May 13, 2030, according to the Minnesota Department of Corrections. It is unclear whether he will now be released from prison. A message seeking comment was left with Hill’s attorney. A spokesperson with Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty’s office said they intend to ask the Minnesota Supreme Court to review the case.

At trial, Hill’s accuser testified under cross-examination that during the assault Hill did not touch any “intimate parts” of her body. She said he did not attempt to undress her, did not undress himself and did not make any sexual comments.

Johnson zeroed in on the notion of corpus delicti in his opinion, a legal term which states that a person should generally not be convicted unless a crime can be proven to have occurred. While Hill confessed his thoughts about committing sexual assault, Minnesota law meant the state had to prove Hill had physically attempted to sexually assault his victim.

In the majority decision, where Johnson was joined by Judge Kevin G. Ross, the court found the state’s argument lacking in that area.

Johnson wrote: “In this case, the underlying uncompleted substantive crime is first-degree criminal sexual conduct using force or coercion causing personal injury. The elements of that crime are (1) the intentional act of sexual penetration, (2) without the consent of the complainant, (3) causing personal injury to the complainant, and (4) through the use of force or coercion.’”

In Hill’s case, the state needed to prove that he had committed “an act which is a substantial step toward, and more than preparation for, the commission of the crime.”

The state argued that they had supplied evidence to prove namely that Hill had visited the apartment several times, had isolated the housing manager in an apartment, shoved her into a closet and began choking her. The appeals court viewed that as evidence of an assault, but not of attempted sexual assault.

Johnson’s opinion continued: “We acknowledge that, in a case like this case, a person in [the housing manager’s] position might fear a sexual assault or might perceive that a sexual assault was imminent. But that apparently was not so in this case.”

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Peter M. Reyes Jr. wrote that even given the majority opinion that intent with physical evidence must be proven rather than just a confession, the evidence presented by the state clearly showed Hill had attempted to carry out the sexual assault he had confessed to police.

Reyes pointed to the housing manager’s actions and testimony as a clear indication of the crime that was taking place.

“That is why she pounded on the walls, scratched him, and told him to stop, and why she later testified to thinking ‘That [she] needed to figure out a way to get out of the situation.’ Not only do these circumstances ‘reasonably tend to prove’ appellant’s guilt, but they point unerringly to the only conclusion that a woman in [her] situation would reach: that appellant intended on engaging in criminal sexual conduct.”