This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn.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 A14-0587
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
vs.
Levi Chen-Wah Leong, Appellant.
Filed May 11, 2015 Affirmed Hooten, Judge
Chisago County District Court File No. 13-CR-12-955
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and
Janet Reiter, Chisago County Attorney, Nicholas A. Hydukovich, Assistant County Attorney, Center City, Minnesota (for respondent)
Glenn P. Bruder, Mitchell, Bruder & Johnson, Edina, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Stauber, Presiding Judge; Schellhas, Judge; and
Hooten, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
HOOTEN, Judge
On appeal from his conviction of third-degree criminal sexual conduct for having
a sexual relationship with a patient, appellant psychiatrist argues that the district court
erred by: (1) allowing the state to introduce other-acts evidence through a former patient; (2) allowing the state to present testimony from a medical expert regarding standards and
practices in the psychiatric field; and (3) excluding evidence that appellant had tested
negative for a sexually transmitted disease. Appellant also alleges that the evidence was
insufficient to convict him. We affirm.
FACTS
This appeal involves a disputed sexual relationship between a psychiatrist,
appellant Levi Chen-Wah Leong, and his patient, R.R. In 2011, R.R. was a 23-year-old
woman suffering from depression, anxiety, and alcoholism. Leong treated his patients
with psychotherapy and prescription medication. R.R.’s first psychotherapy session with
Leong was on September 14, 2011, a “pretty standard” intake interview with no physical
contact. But in later appointments, Leong would sit next to R.R. on a couch in his office
and make physical contact with R.R. by patting her leg or putting his arm around her
shoulder. R.R. did not stop seeing Leong, but noted her concern about his behavior to her
parents and friends.
In November 2011, R.R. entered a residential treatment program for her alcohol
abuse. She continued to have appointments with Leong while she resided at the
treatment center. At a Friday appointment, Leong asked R.R. where the patients at the
treatment program went to church, and he then showed up at that church on the following
Sunday. R.R. was “flustered” by Leong’s unexpected appearance. The next day, she had
another appointment with Leong, during which the two discussed sensitive issues from
R.R.’s past and Leong placed his hand on her face during the therapy session. After the
appointment and before returning to the treatment center, R.R. absconded with a friend’s
2 vehicle and consumed alcohol. She eventually returned to the treatment center in an
intoxicated state. When confronted by program staff about her intoxication, she told
them that Leong’s questions about her past and his inappropriate physical contact incited
her to use alcohol. Program staff discharged her for violating program policy.
After her discharge, R.R. sent Leong an e-mail indicating her reluctance to
continue therapy with him and sought a referral to see a female therapist. Leong sent a
response noting his disappointment with her decision and told her that his therapy
sessions are “the safest environment to untangle confusion” because he “would risk all of
[his] personal and professional life” if they “behaved immorally.” On that same day,
Leong called the treatment program and left a voicemail indicating that he wanted to do a
welfare check on R.R. When the program’s director contacted Leong the next day and
informed him that R.R. had made allegations that he had touched R.R. inappropriately,
Leong remained silent. He then continued to ask questions as to R.R.’s whereabouts.
A few days later, R.R. sent Leong an e-mail saying that she had “no recollection”
of any accusations she made about Leong at the treatment center, and Leong replied that
he would not hold it against her. R.R. continued her therapy with Leong, and he began
spending time with her outside of appointments. The two went to church together and
visited each other’s homes for family dinners. However, R.R. soon stopped going to
church with Leong, as she felt the situation was “getting weird.”
Leong visited R.R. at her townhouse on the night of November 23, 2011. R.R.
testified that she drank wine and took “too many” lorazepam pills that night, and that
Leong made no effort to stop her from doing so. She said that she remembered nothing
3 else about that night. Leong had prescribed lorazepam to R.R. that same day and
acknowledged at trial that the combination of lorazepam and alcohol can cause amnesia.
Early the next morning, R.R.’s father came to the townhouse to make sure R.R. and her
children would be at their family’s Thanksgiving gathering. R.R.’s father went upstairs
to R.R.’s bedroom and saw Leong lying in bed next to his daughter in “nighttime
clothes.” R.R.’s father asked Leong what was going on, and Leong responded that R.R.
had drank too much the night before and was still sleeping. R.R.’s father was
overwhelmed by the situation and left the townhouse. Later that day, R.R. sent Leong an
e-mail stating, “I really hope we did not have sex. I will leave you be [and] stop calling
[and] talking with you. I just want to know exactly what happened last night.”
R.R. testified that a week later, on November 30, Leong had sexual intercourse
with her. R.R. testified that the two were out earlier that night and then had sex at her
townhouse. She said that Leong did not use protection and did not stay the night. R.R.
was still being treated by Leong as a patient at that time. The next morning, R.R. sent an
e-mail to Leong:
Good morning. I hope all is well and [you’re] not too tired. I am worried about how you are feeling or what you are thinking[.] I hope we can talk [sometime] today. I care about you tremendously and I truly want everything to work out between us. I am worried you were disappointed with our intimacy. I am sorry Levi, please tell me how you are feeling sooner than later. . . . Lots of love.
(Emphasis added.) R.R. testified that the mention of “our intimacy” in the e-mail
referred to Leong having sexual intercourse with her.
4 R.R. had her last therapy appointment with Leong on December 5, 2011. Later
that day, Leong was present at R.R.’s townhouse while she was drinking, and R.R. asked
Leong to take her to the liquor store. Leong drove past the liquor store and instead took
R.R. to her mother’s house. R.R. was subsequently taken to the emergency room because
of her alcohol consumption. The next day, R.R. sent Leong an e-mail apologizing for her
conduct, and Leong responded that “this changes nothing between us.”
At the end of December 2011, R.R. told Leong to stop contacting her because
“this [wasn’t] meant to be” and again asked him for a referral to see a new therapist.
Leong continued sending e-mails to her despite her request, and in early January 2012, he
went to R.R.’s townhouse after she failed to answer his phone calls. R.R. locked the
door, shut her curtains, and waited as Leong knocked for two hours and continued calling
her. Leong did not leave until R.R.’s father called him and threatened police involvement
if he did not stop contacting her. Leong then sent R.R. an e-mail, telling her that he had
gone to the townhouse to see if R.R. still wanted to be his friend and informing her that
his wife would soon return from a trip overseas. The last line of his e-mail noted that he
could be divorced before spring if his wife “revert[ed] to [her] past controlling
behaviors.”
R.R. had minimal contact with Leong after this incident, with the exception of two
e-mails to Leong regarding issues with her prescriptions. R.R. eventually told her father,
her mother, and one of her friends that Leong had had sexual intercourse with her, but
law enforcement did not investigate this allegation until R.R. entered another chemical
5 dependency treatment program in August 2012. R.R. informed program staff of her
history with Leong, and the staff forwarded the information to law enforcement.
In connection with that investigation, Leong was charged with one count of third-
degree criminal sexual conduct under Minn. Stat. § 609.344, subd. 1(h)(ii) (2010), which
prohibits a psychotherapist from “engag[ing] in sexual penetration” with a patient
“outside the psychotherapy session if an ongoing psychotherapy-patient relationship
exists.” A four-day jury trial was held in October 2013. R.R. and her parents and friends
testified as witnesses for the state. A number of professionals testified as well, including
employees of the inpatient chemical dependency program used by R.R. and the police
officer and social worker who investigated the case after R.R. reported the alleged sexual
encounter. In addition to the witnesses who provided the above-stated facts, the state
called two other witnesses over the objections of Leong: a woman named K.U., who
testified about her own psychotherapy sessions while being treated by Leong, and a
psychiatrist who testified about ethics and treatment practices in psychiatry.
For the defense, Leong’s mother testified that Leong had largely spent the evening
at home with his parents on November 30, 2011, only leaving once for 45 minutes to “go
help a friend” and later returning. Leong also testified. He acknowledged the
inappropriateness of his relationship with R.R., saying that he “went too far” and “cared
. . . too much about her.” He admitted to socializing and going to church with her,
explaining that he wanted to “give her some healthier role models.” And while he largely
corroborated the events of his and R.R.’s relationship, he claimed that two incidents did
6 not occur: his alleged overnight stay at R.R.’s townhouse on November 23–24 and the
alleged sexual intercourse between him and R.R. on November 30.
The jury found Leong guilty of third-degree criminal sexual conduct. After
denying Leong’s motion for a new trial or for a judgment of acquittal, the district court
sentenced him to 48 months in prison. This appeal followed.
DECISION
I.
On appeal, Leong challenges three of the district court’s evidentiary rulings.
“[E]videntiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be
reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.” State v. Griffin, 834 N.W.2d 688, 693
(Minn. 2013) (quotation omitted). Leong bears the burden of establishing that the district
court abused its discretion and that he was prejudiced by any erroneous ruling. Id.
A. Expert Testimony
Leong first challenges the district court’s decision to allow the state to introduce
expert testimony from a psychiatrist, Dr. Lori Polubinsky, as to ethical standards in the
psychiatric field. Over Leong’s objection, the district court allowed Dr. Polubinsky to
testify as to proper boundaries in psychiatrist-patient relationships, as the district court
believed that the jurors would lack knowledge of what those boundaries should be in light
of the glamorization of doctor-patient relationships in television and film.
Dr. Polubinsky testified that the medical ethics rules are premised on the
imbalance of power between doctor and patient and are intended to protect the patient.
She provided the specific ethical rule proscribing sex between psychiatrists and patients
7 and detailed other doctor-patient boundary violations, including physical contact beyond
a handshake, attending social events with a patient, and entering into a romantic
relationship with a patient. Dr. Polubinsky also testified as to general psychiatric
practices, explaining that psychiatrists typically perform welfare checks on patients only
if they are suicidal, and that psychiatrists conduct them by contacting law enforcement
who can determine whether hospitalization is needed. She opined that lorazepam should
not be prescribed to alcoholics because it has similar addictive qualities as alcohol, and
noted that lorazepam in combination with alcohol can cause blackouts. She also stated
that most psychiatrists do not practice psychotherapy because it is subject to low
reimbursement rates from insurance companies.
Expert testimony is allowed only if it “assist[s] the trier of fact to understand the
evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” Minn. R. Evid. 702. However, expert
testimony should not be admitted if the jury can resolve a fact issue by applying
principles of general or common knowledge and the expert testimony could dissuade the
jury from exercising its own independent judgment. State v. DeShay, 669 N.W.2d 878,
885 (Minn. 2003).
Leong argues that this expert testimony was unhelpful and cumulative, as Leong
essentially conceded at trial that his relationship with R.R. was inappropriate. He also
claims that he was prejudiced by the fact that Dr. Polubinsky gave testimony not only
about medical ethics, but also the unusualness of psychiatrists practicing psychotherapy
and her views as to the impropriety of prescribing lorazepam to alcoholics. He argues
8 that this testimony unduly influenced the jury to believe that Leong’s treatment was
geared to “take advantage of [R.R.] to gratify his personal needs.”
Leong’s arguments are unpersuasive. This case essentially turned on the jury’s
determination of Leong’s credibility. While Leong may have admitted to the impropriety
of his relationship with R.R. in light of the fact that she was his patient, his testimony
attempted to create a portrait of an overly caring psychiatrist who got carried away in
pursuing a friendship with a patient. Dr. Polubinsky’s testimony, including the
information about doctor-patient boundaries, psychotherapy, and lorazepam treatment,
therefore aided the jury in determining whether to believe Leong’s professed benevolent
intentions toward R.R. She did not offer an opinion on the specific facts of Leong’s
conduct with R.R., but rather provided the jury with information on the psychiatric
profession that it would not have otherwise received from Leong or any other witness.
Moreover, Leong’s contention that Dr. Polubinsky’s testimony unexpectedly
“morph[ed]” at trial beyond the issues the state represented she would be testifying about
is not borne out by the record. In his motion in limine to exclude her testimony, Leong
acknowledged that Dr. Polubinsky would “likely focus on her review of the exchanged
emails, the frequency of appointments, and the use of medications.” (Emphasis added.)
The state’s response provided that she “will testify generally to standards and normal
practices in the psychiatric field in areas such as boundaries” and other doctor-patient
relationship issues. (Emphasis added.) Leong was on notice that Dr. Polubinsky would
be giving generalized testimony about the psychiatric profession, and he does not argue
that this testimony was outside the limits of her uncontested expertise in psychiatry. See
9 State v. Crow, 730 N.W.2d 272, 280 (Minn. 2007) (providing that experts “may not
testify to matters beyond [their] expertise”). We conclude that the district court did not
abuse its discretion by allowing Dr. Polubinsky to testify.
B. Rule 404(b) Testimony
Leong next argues that the district court abused its discretion by allowing the state
to introduce the testimony of K.U. under Minn. R. Evid. 404(b). At trial, K.U. testified
that she was a recovering alcoholic who had also abused lorazepam, and she began to see
Leong in February 2012 for psychotherapy sessions designed to treat her depression and
anxiety. During their first appointment, Leong asked questions about her past sexual
abuse and her sex life at home, including whether her husband was a “domineering
person with [her] sex life.” When the session ended, Leong gave her a “deep, kind of
personal hug” and rubbed her back. He also prescribed lorazepam for her despite her past
substance abuse problems. She testified that, during a later psychotherapy session, Leong
grabbed her face while she was reading an article with him and that she feared he was
going to kiss her. She continued seeing Leong in spite of her concerns about his actions,
but would purposely put a big purse and a big coat next to her chair so he would not sit
next to her. Leong would move those items, sit next to her, and rub her leg. After raising
these concerns with her primary physician, K.U. transferred to a different psychiatrist
after seven appointments with Leong.
Evidence of a defendant’s other “crime, wrong, or act,” otherwise known as
Spreigl evidence, cannot be admitted to prove the defendant’s character “in order to
show” that the defendant acted in conformity therewith. Minn. R. Evid. 404(b); see State
10 v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 490–91, 139 N.W.2d 167, 169 (1965). But, such evidence
may be admissible for “other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent,
preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.” Minn. R.
Evid. 404(b). When the evidence is of post-crime incidents, it should be “admitted with
caution.” State v. Wiskow, 501 N.W.2d 657, 659 (Minn. App. 1993). A five-step process
is followed in determining whether to admit such other-acts evidence:
(1) the state must give notice of its intent to admit the evidence; (2) the state must clearly indicate what the evidence will be offered to prove; (3) there must be clear and convincing evidence that the defendant participated in the prior act; (4) the evidence must be material and relevant to the state’s case; and (5) the probative value of the evidence must not be outweighed by its potential prejudice to the defendant.
State v. Ness, 707 N.W.2d 676, 686 (Minn. 2006).
On appeal, Leong challenges the relevance and probative value of this other-acts
evidence. The district court, in admitting K.U.’s testimony regarding Leong’s
“grooming” behavior, relied solely on the common scheme or plan exception under rule
404(b), concluding that her testimony was relevant to determining whether R.R. was
similarly groomed for a romantic relationship with Leong. To be admissible under the
common scheme or plan exception, the incident must have a close relationship in time
and place to the charged crime, as well as “a marked similarity in modus operandi,” but
the other act “need not be identical in every way to the charged crime.” Id. at 688
(quotation omitted).
In attempting to refute the similarities between K.U.’s testimony and the facts of
the charged offense, Leong produces a list of differences: Leong never invited K.U. to his
11 house, had dinner with her, sent her e-mails, or had sex with her. But, many similarities
between the circumstances of Leong’s conduct with K.U. and R.R. remain. R.R. and
K.U. both had a history of alcohol abuse, coupled with depression and anxiety problems.
Leong began treating K.U. in February 2012—two months after he allegedly had sexual
intercourse with R.R. and a matter of weeks after R.R. had cut off contact with him.
And, while Leong allegedly had sex with R.R. at her townhouse, Leong’s grooming
behavior with both R.R. and K.U. was established in his office. Further, once Leong
began therapy with each of them, the course of events in his office was quite similar: as
Leong gained familiarity with each patient, he escalated his physical contact enough to
make both women uncomfortable. He also prescribed lorazepam to both of them,
contravening Dr. Polubinsky’s expert opinion at trial that alcoholics should not be treated
with that drug. While not “identical,” this was “markedly similar” conduct outside
professional boundaries that supports the state’s theory of the case that Leong was
grooming vulnerable female patients in order to have sex with them; therefore, we
conclude that K.U.’s testimony was relevant to showing a common scheme or plan under
rule 404(b). See id. (quotation omitted).
Leong further argues that this evidence’s unfair prejudice outweighs its probative
value because the “innocuous” nature of his conduct with K.U. runs counter to evidence
of other crimes or acts typically admitted under rule 404(b) and establishes that this
evidence was really introduced to suggest Leong’s propensity for sexual involvement
with patients. In determining whether the evidence’s probative value outweighs its
potential for unfair prejudice, we balance the evidence’s relevance and “the [s]tate’s need
12 to strengthen weak or inadequate proof” against its risk of use as propensity evidence.
State v. Fardan, 773 N.W.2d 303, 319 (Minn. 2009).
Leong’s characterization of his conduct with K.U. as “innocuous” cuts against his
argument that this evidence wrongly shows his character for committing bad acts. If
Leong’s conduct toward K.U. truly “could just as readily be perceived as caring rather
than wrongful,” then this evidence could have established his propensity for caring, not
for committing crimes, and any unfair prejudice to Leong was minimized by the
evidence’s relatively benign nature. And, while Leong claims that rule 404(b) is intended
to allow the admission of only overtly criminal evidence by citing several cases that
admitted evidence of other crimes, the rule allows evidence of “crime[s], wrong[s], or
act[s].” Minn. R. Evid. 404(b) (emphasis added). Caselaw indicates that district courts
have properly admitted conduct that does not amount to a criminal act in order for the
state to prove a common scheme or plan under the rule. See, e.g., Wiskow, 501 N.W.2d
at 659–60 (concluding that district court did not err by admitting pornographic magazine
that defendant had shown victim three months after the offense).
Further, rule 404(b) evidence of this nature gains probative value when the
defendant specifically alleges that the victim is fabricating the conduct on which the
charge is based. See State v. Wermerskirchen, 497 N.W.2d 235, 237, 241–42 (Minn.
1993). Thus, K.U.’s testimony had significant probative value in light of the state’s need
to bolster R.R.’s credibility in order to counter Leong’s claim that she fabricated her
testimony that the two had sexual intercourse. Moreover, a district court’s instructions to
the jury as to the use of rule 404(b) testimony can “lessen[] the probability of undue
13 weight being given by the jury to the evidence,” State v. Bartylla, 755 N.W.2d 8, 22
(Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted), and the district court gave such an instruction before
K.U.’s testimony and at the close of trial. Based on these considerations, we conclude
that the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing K.U. to testify at trial.
C. Exclusion of HPV Test Result
Leong next challenges the district court’s decision to prevent him from
introducing the result of a human papillomavirus (HPV) test taken by Leong. Before
trial, the district court ruled that, without expert testimony establishing the
contagiousness of HPV, Leong had failed to demonstrate the test’s relevance. Leong
testified at trial that R.R. told him that she had HPV, but he did not testify as to his
negative test result. Reconsidering the issue after Leong testified, the district court again
stressed that without medical testimony establishing the fact that unprotected sexual
intercourse by a male with a female with HPV would result in transmission of the
disease, the test results “would have been very misleading to the jury” in its
determination of whether intercourse occurred. Leong argues that the district court erred
in excluding this evidence because the fact that HPV is a sexually transmitted disease is
“widely known in the community,” and the test result was thus relevant and probative
even without expert testimony.
Evidence is relevant if it has “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that
is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than
it would be without the evidence.” Minn. R. Evid. 401. Assuming that Leong’s
14 purported negative HPV test result was scientifically valid,1 that evidence would have
tended to make it more likely that he did not have sex with R.R. However, the rules of
evidence give district courts the discretion to exclude relevant evidence “if its probative
value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice . . . or misleading the
jury.” Minn. R. Evid. 403.
Here, the district court correctly noted the danger of misleading the jury if Leong
had been allowed to introduce the test result. While it is a matter of general knowledge
that HPV is a contagious sexually transmitted disease, and Leong could have testified to
such, without expert testimony the jury would be left to guess as to how often and in what
situations HPV can be transmitted between sexual partners. Leong’s counsel was aware
of the district court’s desire for an expert witness and told the district court that he had
subpoenaed such an expert, but ultimately failed to produce such a witness. Under these
circumstances, any minimal probative value of the supposed negative test result was
1 The medical records that purportedly show that Leong tested negative for HPV are absent from the record on appeal. Under Minnesota law, proponents of novel scientific evidence derived from a specific test are required to satisfy the two prongs of the Frye- Mack standard before such evidence can be admitted. See State v. MacLennan, 702 N.W.2d 219, 233 (Minn. 2005). “A Frye-Mack analysis requires both general acceptance in the relevant scientific community and foundational reliability.” Id. While we make no opinion as to the potential outcome of any Frye-Mack determination that could have been made in this case, we note that other jurisdictions have found that there is currently no reliable method to test for HPV in men. See Kohl v. Kohl, 149 So.3d 127, 139 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014) (“Currently, the CDC does not even recommend an HPV test for men.”); Endres v. Endres, 968 A.2d 336, 343 (Vt. 2008) (“Several forms of HPV are subclinical and do not produce any symptoms for years, and in men HPV rarely produces symptoms or leads to other health problems.”). Our unpublished caselaw provides that testimony to this effect has been given in other criminal cases. See State v. Simon, No. A06-2462, 2008 WL 1971397, at *4 (Minn. App. May 6, 2008) (“[The nurse] testified that HPV cannot be tested in males.”), review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).
15 greatly outweighed by the danger that the jury, without the assistance of expert
testimony, would have misused the test result by speculatively inferring a lack of sexual
intercourse. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding
this evidence as irrelevant and misleading.
II.
Leong lastly contends that the record as a whole is insufficient to support his
conviction for third-degree criminal sexual conduct. In considering a claim of
insufficient evidence, we conduct “a painstaking analysis of the record to determine
whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, was
sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” State v. Ortega, 813
N.W.2d 86, 100 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted). In undertaking this analysis, we
assume that the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved evidence to the
contrary. State v. Hayes, 826 N.W.2d 799, 805 (Minn. 2013). “This is especially true
where resolution of the case depends on conflicting testimony, because weighing the
credibility of witnesses is the exclusive function of the jury.” State v. Pieschke, 295
N.W.2d 580, 584 (Minn. 1980). “We do not disturb the verdict if the jury, acting with
due regard for the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a
reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the charged
offense.” Ortega, 813 N.W.2d at 100.
Leong was convicted of third-degree criminal sexual conduct under Minn. Stat.
§ 609.344, subd. 1(h)(ii). At trial and on appeal, Leong only disputes the sufficiency of
the evidence establishing that he had sexual intercourse with R.R. The only direct
16 evidence produced at trial that Leong had sex with R.R. was R.R.’s testimony that the
two had sex on the night of November 30, 2011. Leong claims that her statements about
that night, both at trial and to investigators, were “neither consistent nor detailed” and
argues that the evidence at trial actually “illustrated R.R.’s propensity to embellish her
relationship with Leong.” He also points to two incidents that he claims impugn her
credibility: (1) the fact that prior to the alleged offense, other residents of the chemical
dependency treatment program that R.R. was attending in November 2011 indicated that
R.R. had told them that she was having sex with Leong; and (2) the inherent conflict
between R.R.’s father’s testimony that he saw Leong in bed with R.R. on Thanksgiving
morning and phone records of calls between Leong and R.R. early that same morning.
This argument is unpersuasive in light of our standard of review and the nature of
this case. Here, the jury had to make a choice in reaching its verdict: credit R.R.’s
testimony that Leong had sex with her on November 30 and find Leong guilty, or credit
Leong’s testimony that he refused R.R.’s advances that night and acquit. Because we
defer to the jury’s credibility determinations and assume that evidence supporting the
conviction was believed, Pieschke, 295 N.W.2d at 584, we assume that the jury
necessarily discredited Leong’s testimony and believed R.R. See State v. Hamilton, 289
N.W.2d 470, 477 (Minn. 1979) (“[T]he jury was entitled to believe complainant’s story
and disbelieve defendant’s account.”). And, while Minnesota law specifically provides
that “the testimony of a victim need not be corroborated” in a prosecution under this
statute, Minn. Stat. § 609.347, subd. 1 (2010), R.R.’s testimony is corroborated by the
record. The e-mails, phone calls, and witness testimony all corroborated the fact that
17 Leong and R.R. were in a relationship far beyond that of an appropriate psychiatrist-
patient relationship, thereby bolstering R.R.’s credibility. On this record, we conclude
that there was sufficient evidence to support Leong’s conviction of third-degree criminal
sexual conduct.
Affirmed.