State of Minnesota, Respondent,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A19-1259

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Deonte Darnell Lawson,
Appellant.

Filed August 17, 2020
Affirmed
Slieter, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-CR-18-5059

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Jean Burdorf, Assistant County
Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Jenna Yauch-Erickson, Assistant
Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Reyes, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Slieter, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
SLIETER, Judge
Appellant challenges his conviction of two counts of first -degree criminal sexual
conduct, arguing that the district court plainly erred by instructing the jury about the venue

2
element of the offense and erred in imposing a life -without-release prison sentence.1
Because the district court did not plainly err in its venue instruction and the record supports
the jury’s verdict regarding two or more heinous elements, which support the life-without-
release sentence, we affirm.
FACTS
Respondent the State of Minnesota charged appellant Deonte Darnell Lawson with
two counts of first -degree criminal sexual conduct , in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.342,
subds. 1(c), (f)(i) (2016), and one count of kidnapping, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.25,
subd 1(2) (2016) . The state sought a life prison sentence on the two criminal -sexual-
conduct counts based on the presence of two or more heinous elements pursuant to Minn.
Stat. § 609.3455, subd. 2(1) (2016). The following facts derive from Lawson’s jury trial.
Three men kidnapped K.T. as she retrieved groceries from her car parked outside of
her Minneapolis apartment. K.T. did not know these men, and she described them as three
African Americans who were “about [her] age, maybe a little bit younger.” The man in
the middle, later identified as Lawson, looked slightly older than the other men, carried a
gun, and “seemed like he was kind of the leader.”
K.T. woke up not knowing where she was. She testified, “I had a really bad feeling
in the back of my head like I had been hit with something. It was just a ve ry sharp pain

1 Lawson also argues in his pro se brief that the outcome of his case should have been
different due to evidence that was not presented. Lawson’s arguments are conclusory ,
without reference to the record , and he does not cite any supported legal authority. The
arguments are therefore forfeited. See State v. Bursch, 905 N.W.2d 884, 889 (Minn. App.
2017) (holding that conclusory arguments that cite no applicable law are forfeited).

3
that I hadn’t felt before. I was confused.” She eventually remembered the encounter in
the parking lot. Lawson drove the car while one man sat in the passenger seat and the other
man in the back seat by K.T. Though she was unsure of the exact location, she thought the
car was traveling somewhere in south Minneapolis.
At some point, Lawson parked the car at a wooded park off a residential road, and
one of the men pulled K.T. out of the car. After walking ten feet into the woods, Lawson
told K.T. to get on her knees, and she was forced to perform oral sex on “two of the boys,
but it co uld have [been] three.” She was then forced to her stomach, held down, and
vaginally raped. She testified that everything was blurry, but she believes that all three
men took turns penetrating her. She screamed in pain when one man attempted to anally
penetrate her. She testified, “I can’t remember if they were successful or not, but I
remember that bein g the worst part.” She also testified that during t he sexual assault
Lawson “was talking to the younger boys kind of telling them what to do.” K.T. shut her
eyes during the assault. After the rape, Lawson told the boys to knock her out, and K.T.
felt “really sharp blows to the left side of [her] head and [her] face.” She “was knocked
unconscious at that point a little bit.” She was pushed back in the car without her vest,
shoes, or underwear.
K.T.’s company credit card electronic statement showed that the men later stopped
at the White Castle on Rice St reet in St. Paul . K.T. recognized a St. Paul landmark and
watched their car get on I -94 East and later onto a north-bound interstate. K.T. noticed
what looked like an old farmhouse that was converted into a gas station and convinced
Lawson that they needed to get gas.

4
K.T. got out of the car while it was still slowly moving and one of the men jumped
out with her. She pretended to check if the store was open while she looked fo r ways to
escape. K .T. started to walk around the store and saw a back stairca se leading to a
residential door. K.T. “ran up the rest of the stairs and started bang ing on the door.” At
some point, the car drove away.
An officer arrived and told K.T. that it was 4:00 a.m. and she was several miles
north of Stillwater. K.T. was interviewed by several officers and brought to the hospital
for a sexual assault exam.
Law enforcement identified and arrested the three perpetrators, including Lawson.
DNA taken from the three men matched DNA on K.T. One of the perpetrators testified
that Lawson had two guns on his lap while driving the car.
The jury found Lawson guilty on all three counts. For sentencing purposes, the jury
found that the following three heinous elements listed on the special-verdict forms were
present: (1) “defendant was armed with a dangerous weapon . . . and defendant used or
threated to use the dangerous weapon or article to cause the victim to submit,” (2) “more
than one perpetrator engage[d] in sexu al penetration with the victim,” and (3) “the
defendant, without t he victim’s consent, remove[d] the victim from one place to another
and [did] not release the victim in a safe place.” These findings correlate to Minn. Stat.
§ 609.3455, subds. 1(d)(5), (7), and (8) (2016), respectively. The district court sentenced
Lawson to life without the possibility of release on the first two counts based on the
existence of two or more heinous factors of Minn. Stat. § 609.3455, subd. 2(1).

5
D E C I S I O N
I. Any purported error with the venue element jury instruction is not plain.

Lawson argues that the district court plainly erred in its instruction to the jury on the
venue element of the offense. 2 For all three charges, the jury instruction provided by the
district court to the jury regarding venue was as follows : “Venue in Hennepin County is
established when any element of the offense was committed in Hennepin County or where
the crime was set in operation and/or triggered, in Hennepin County.” 3
Lawson did not object to the jury instruction s at trial. “A defendant generally
forfeits the right to contest jury instructions on appeal when the defendant fails to object at
trial.” State v. Davis , 864 N.W.2d 171, 176 (Minn. 2015). But an unobjected -to jury
instruction can be analyzed on appeal under the plain -error standard. Minn. R. Crim. P.
31.02; State v. Taylor, 869 N.W.2d 1, 15 (Minn. 2015). In a plain-error analysis, appellate
courts review the jury instruction to determine (1) whether there was error, (2) whether the
error was plain, and (3) whether the error affected ap pellant’s substantial rights. State v.
Kelley, 855 N.W.2d 269, 273 -74 (Minn. 2014). Even if an appellant meets these
requirements, appellate courts “may correct the error only if it seriously affects the fairness,
integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 274 (quotation omitted). An

2 Lawson separately argues that the state provided insufficient evidence to establish venue.
The attorneys expressed agreement during oral argument that the determination whether
the district court erred by its jury instruction regarding the venue element necessarily
resolves this alternative argument.
3 While the written jury instructions on all three counts include this language, the transcript
shows that the district court read the quoted portion for the two sexual assault counts ,
though not when reading the instructions for the kidnapping count.

6
appellant fails to meet the standard when any of the requirements are not met. See State v.
Webster, 894 N.W.2d 782, 786 (Minn. 2017).
We need not address all the plain -error requirements because, assuming without
deciding that the jury instruction was in error, the error was not plain. “An error is plain if
it was clear or obvious. Usually this is shown if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a
standard of conduct.” State v. Ramey , 721 N.W.2d 294, 302 (Minn. 2006) (quotation
omitted). “An alleged error does not contravene caselaw unless the issue is ‘conclusively
resolved.’” State v. Hollins , 765 N.W.2d 125, 133 (Minn. App. 2009) (quoting State v.
Jones, 753 N.W.2d 677, 689 (Minn. 2008)).
Our constitution provides every defendant the right to be prosecuted in “the county
or district wherein the crime shall have been committed,” Minn. Const. art. 1, § 6, and our
legislature codified this constitutional right as an essential element of every cri minal
offense, Minn. Stat. § 627.01, subd. 1 (2018). This has been interpreted to mean that venue
must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt as an element of every crime. State v. Pierce,
792 N.W.2d 83, 85 (Minn. App. 2010). Additionally, “[i]f a person commits an act in one
county causing injury or death in another county, the offense may be prosecuted in either
county. If doubt exists as to where the act, injury, or death occurred, the offense may be
prosecuted in any of the counties.” Minn. R. Crim. P. 24.02, subd. 3.
The district court did not commit plain error by providing the instruction because it
did not contravene conclusively resolved caselaw. The venue language in the jury
instructions was the same language used to define venue in State v. Daniels—a factually
similar case involving a kidnapping in Stearns County , robbery in Hennepin County, and

7
sexual assault in an unknown county and for which offenses Daniels was prosecuted in
Stearns County. 765 N.W.2d 645, 648 (Minn. App. 2009), review denied (Minn. Aug. 11,
2009).
In Daniels, this court stated that the location of a “triggering event” or “operative
event” of the criminal offense is an appropriate venue for prosecution. Id. at 650 -51.
Lawson argues that Daniels ought not to direct our analysis because it dealt with venue
solely as an appropriate location for the trial and not as an element of the crime. Our review
of Daniels, along with other precedential caselaw, does not convince us that such a
distinction establishes clear error in the instructions. 4 And nothing in the Daniels analysis
or its holding suggests it was making a distinction between venue as to the location of trial
contrasted with venue as an element of the offense that must be proved by the state.
Our supreme court addressed this issue i n State v. Norton , a Hennepin County
child-kidnapping case in which, despite the presence of sufficient evidence, the state chose
not to charge the defendant with criminal sexual abuse. 328 N.W.2d 142, 144 n.1 (Minn.
1982). The Norton court stated, “[T]he fact the victim had no idea in which county the
sexual abuse occurred was not a valid reason for not charging defendant with criminal
sexual conduct.” Id. The supreme court included a reference to the child abuse venue
statute, Minn. Stat. § 627.15 (1980), and Minn. R. Crim. P. 24.02, subd. 3, which stated,

4 A thorough reading of Daniels reveals this court was considering all venue purposes in
reaching its decision: venue as it relates to its geographical place, id. at 649, venue as an
element of the crime to be proved by the prosecutor, id. (citing State v. Larsen, 442 N.W.2d
840, 842 (Minn. App. 1989)), and venue as to subject matter jurisdiction, id. at 650 (citing
to State v. Simion, 745 N.W.2d 830, 839 (Minn. 2008)).

8
“If it is doubtful in which one of two or more counties the act was committed or injury or
death occurred, the offense may be prosecuted and tried in any one of such counties.”5 Id.
This unequivocal statement does not suggest any material distinction between venue as an
element and venue as trial location.
We recognize that the two concepts of venue are established by different levels of
proof so that “venue determination relating to where a trial may be held . . . is distinct from
venue as an element of the offense.” State v. Eibensteiner, 690 N.W.2d 140, 150 (Minn.
App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Mar. 15, 2005) ; see also Pierce, 792 N.W.2d at 85 .
However, that difference is not relevant here.
The sole question before us is whether the district court plainly erred by instructing
the jury that the venue element of the crime is met when a triggering or operative event
occurred in Hennepin County. Because we cannot say the district court’s venue instruction
was contrary to clearly established law, we cannot conclude the district court committed
plain error. See Hollins, 765 N.W.2d at 133.
II. The state provided sufficient evide nce to prove two heinous elements
supporting Lawson’s life sentence.

Lawson argues that his lifetime sentence without parole pursuant to Minn. Stat.
§ 609.3455, subd. 2., should be reversed because (1) the state did not provide sufficient
facts to prove the dangerous weapon element , and (2) the removal element is invalid

5 The rule now states, “If doubt exists as to where the act, injury, or death occurred, the
offense may be prosecuted in any of the counties.” Minn. R. Crim. P. 24.02, subd. 3.

9
because it relies on the facts used in the kidnapping conviction. 6 A person convicted of
first-degree criminal sexual conduct shall be sentenced to life without the possibility of
release if “the factfinder determines that two or more heinous elements exist.” Minn. Stat.
§ 609.3455, subd. 2 (a)(1). Because there is sufficient evidence to support the d angerous
weapon heinous element, we need not analyze the removal element.
Minn. Stat. § 609.3455, subd. 1(d)(5) includes as an heinous element that “the
offender was armed with a dangerous weapon or any article used or fashioned in a manner
to lead the complain ant to reasonably believe it to be dangerous weapon and used or
threatened to use the weapon or article to cause the complainant to submit.” Appellate
courts review questions of statutory interpretation de novo. State v. Overweg, 922 N.W.2d
179, 182 -83 (Minn. 2019). We conclude this statute is unambiguous. See State v.
Thonesavanh, 904 N.W.2d 432, 435 (Minn. 2017) (“A statute is ambiguous only if it is
subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.” (quotation omitted)).
Lawson argues that the state provided insufficient evidence that he used a dangerous
weapon to force K.T. to submit because there was no evidence that Lawson had a gun
during the criminal sexual conduct. However, to conclude there is insufficient evidence to
support the jury’s heinous element verdict would require us to insert the phrase “during the
sexual assault” into the unambiguous statute. 7 This we cannot do. See Walsh v. U.S. Bank,

6 Lawson does not challenge the third heinous element the jury found —that “more than
one perpetrator engage[d] in sexual penetration” with the victim. Minn. Stat. § 609.3455,
subd. 1(d)(7).
7 We previously reached the same conclusion in State v. Elmi , No. A16 -1692, 2017 WL
5663491 (Minn. App. Nov. 27, 2017), review denied (Minn. Jan. 24, 2018).

10
N.A., 851 N.W.2d 598, 604 (Minn. 2014) (“[W]e do not add words or phrases to
unambiguous statutes or rules.”).
K.T. and Freeman testified that Lawson used a gun when originally approaching
K.T. Freeman also testified that Lawson had two guns on his lap in the car both before and
after K.T. was raped. K.T. testified tha t she did not yell until the men tried to anally
penetrate her because she “was so scared.” She also testified that she did not initially run
away from the men because she was worried they would shoot her. Lawson’s guns are the
only guns mentioned in the case. The jury could reasonably infer that K.T. was scared for
her life because Lawson had a gun. There was sufficient evidence to support the dangerous
weapon heinous element involving multiple perpetrators , which, along with the
uncontested heinous element, supports the life-without-release sentence.
Affirmed.