This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

A14-0971

State of Minnesota, 

Respondent, 

vs. 

Karen Sue Butcher, 

Appellant

Filed March 9, 2015

Affirmed

Worke, Judge

St. Louis County District Court

File No. 69DU-CR-11-3286

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Mark S. Rubin, St. Louis County Attorney, Victoria D. Wanta, Assistant County 

Attorney, Duluth, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Sara J. Euteneuer, Assistant 

Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Peterson, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and 

Connolly, Judge. 

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

WORKE, Judge

Appellant challenges her fifth-degree criminal-sexual-conduct conviction, arguing 

that the evidence is insufficient to show that her “intimate parts” made contact with the 

complainant. We affirm.
2

D E C I S I O N

A jury found appellant Karen Sue Butcher guilty of fifth-degree criminal sexual 

conduct and disorderly conduct. She challenges the sufficiency of the evidence 

supporting the criminal-sexual-conduct conviction. 

“Whe[n] there is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this court reviews 

the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine if the evidence was 

sufficient to permit the jury to reach the verdict it did.” State v. Ford, 539 N.W.2d 214, 

225 (Minn. 1995). We assume that the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved 

contrary evidence. State v. Huss, 506 N.W.2d 290, 292 (Minn. 1993). 

If a jury considered circumstantial evidence, this court applies a heightened 

standard of review. State v. Porte, 832 N.W.2d 303, 309 (Minn. App. 2013). This 

standard includes a two-step analysis to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to 

support the conviction. State v. Moore, 846 N.W.2d 83, 88 (Minn. 2014). First, this 

court “identif[ies] the circumstances proved,” “assum[ing] that the jury resolved any 

factual disputes in a manner that is consistent with the jury’s verdict.” Id. Second, we

“examine independently the reasonableness of the inferences that might be drawn from 

the circumstances proved,” and then “determine whether the circumstances proved are 

consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” 

Id. (quotations omitted). The evidence is considered as a whole, not each piece in 

isolation. State v. Andersen, 784 N.W.2d 320, 332 (Minn. 2010).

Butcher was convicted of fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct. A person is guilty 

of fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct if the person engages in nonconsensual sexual 
3

“touching by the complainant of the actor’s intimate parts, effected by the actor, if the 

action is performed with sexual or aggressive intent.” Minn. Stat. § 609.3451, subd. 1(1) 

(2010). “Intimate parts” include “the primary genital area, groin, inner thigh, buttocks, 

or breast of a human being.” Minn. Stat. § 609.341, subd. 5 (2010). 

Here, on June 7, 2011, while R.R., the owner of a drug store, was kneeling at the 

end of an aisle straightening products on a bottom shelf, Butcher approached him from 

behind, rubbed her genital area against his back, and asked: “How do you like having 

some p---y on your back?” R.R. jumped up and replied: “That’s f---ing gross.” 

Butcher concedes that the contact was nonconsensual and that she acted with 

sexual intent. She argues, however, that the state failed to prove that she touched her 

“intimate parts” to R.R.’s back. She asserts that she has a “protruding stomach” that 

prevented her “intimate parts” from making contact with R.R. She claims that because 

R.R.’s back was turned, he could not be certain as to what body part touched him. 

Butcher also asserts that it is impossible to determine which body part touched R.R. from 

the surveillance video because her leg obscures the contact between her body and R.R. 

But direct and circumstantial evidence support Butcher’s conviction. R.R. 

testified that while he could not see what body part was touching him, it felt like Butcher 

rubbed her “groin area.” Additionally, while Butcher rubbed against R.R., she asked: 

“How do you like having some p---y on your back?” The surveillance video shows 

Butcher walk behind a kneeling R.R., stand behind him, spread her legs wider than 

shoulder width apart, and bend her knees so that her knees are directed approximately 45 
4

degrees from center. With R.R.’s body slightly between her legs, Butcher then thrusts 

her pelvic area forward into R.R.’s back. 

Although Butcher claims that her protruding stomach stopped her pelvic area from 

touching R.R., the video shows Butcher achieving contact with the upward thrust of her 

pelvic area into R.R.’s back. Moreover, intimate parts include the “inner thigh” and the 

video shows Butcher’s legs turned out at a 45-degree angle establishing contact between 

her inner thighs and R.R.’s back. And R.R. testified that he could feel her legs and her 

pelvic area. See Minn. Stat. § 609.347, subd. 1 (2010) (stating that in a fifth-degree 

criminal-sexual-conduct prosecution, a victim’s testimony need not be corroborated). 

The evidence sufficiently supports Butcher’s conviction. 

Affirmed.