This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A25-1322
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
vs.
Ricardo Lopez Bibiano, Appellant.
Filed June 15, 2026 Affirmed Smith, Tracy M., Judge
Sibley County District Court File No. 72-CR-24-214
Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and
Donald E. Lannoye, Sibley County Attorney, Gaylord, Minesota (for respondent)
Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Eva F. Wailes, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Wheelock, Presiding Judge; Connolly, Judge; and
Smith, Tracy M., Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
SMITH, TRACY M., Judge
On direct appeal from the final judgment of conviction for two counts of first-degree
criminal sexual conduct following a bench trial, appellant Ricardo Lopez Bibiano argues
that respondent State of Minnesota failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Specifically, he argues that the evidence is insufficient because the testimony of the
complainant—his stepdaughter—was not corroborated. We affirm.
FACTS
The following evidence was introduced at trial.
C.J.’s Testimony
Bibiano’s wife, C.J., testified as follows. Bibiano and C.J. began a relationship in
2013. The following year, Bibiano moved in with C.J. and her daughter, S.J., who was
around one year old. C.J. and Bibiano eventually married and had two joint children. C.J.
and Bibiano sometimes fought, and he moved in and out of her house multiple times. When
C.J. began working nights, Bibiano would be the only adult home watching the children.
Around 2023, C.J. started noticing a change in S.J.’s personality and that she had stopped
enjoying things and had begun fighting with her siblings more. In August 2024, when S.J.
was 11 years old, Bibiano told C.J. that S.J. had “started her period.” C.J. asked S.J. about
it, and S.J. told C.J. that her period had lasted more than a week. When it continued for a
few more days, C.J. took S.J. to a clinic. At the clinic, while C.J. was present, S.J. told a
nurse that her stepfather had been sexually abusing her.
S.J.’s Testimony
S.J. testified as follows. S.J.’s mother worked nights, and there were times when
Bibiano would be alone with S.J. at night while the other children were asleep. In 2019,
when S.J. was seven years old and in first grade, Bibiano “would put his hand on [her]
chest and he would grab [her] butt and . . . over [her] clothes he would touch [her] vagina
and he would kiss [her] on [her] cheek and [her] mouth.” This would happen about three
2 times a week when she was in first grade, and it continued through second grade. When
S.J. was eight years old, Bibiano began touching her chest area, vagina, and butt under her
clothes, and that conduct continued in third grade. Bibiano would also undress S.J. and “try
putting his penis inside of [S.J.].” Bibiano put his penis in S.J.’s vagina three times, but
other times she “would like move away and stuff and kick him and try to put [her] clothes
back on so he wouldn’t do anything.” This continued into fourth grade, when it stopped for
a period of time and then resumed, continuing through fifth grade. In July 2024, when S.J.
was in fifth grade, Bibiano’s conduct stopped. S.J. initially did not tell anyone about the
abuse because she was scared of Bibiano, but she eventually told the nurse at the clinic.
During cross-examination, S.J. acknowledged that her mom and Bibiano would have
verbal arguments, that S.J.’s mom was upset because Bibiano was dating S.J.’s mom’s
sister, and that S.J. was happier now that Bibiano had moved out.
Police Interview
A police officer was called to the clinic the day that S.J. disclosed the sexual abuse,
and he interviewed S.J. and C.J. A transcript of the interview was submitted into evidence
at trial. S.J.’s and C.J.’s statements in the interview are consistent with their trial testimony.
Forensic Examination
After S.J. was interviewed by the police officer, she was referred for a forensic
interview with a social worker. The social worker, D.K., testified at trial regarding her
training and experience and that, in August 2024, she conducted the forensic interview of
S.J. The transcript of D.K.’s interview of S.J. was then admitted into evidence. As reflected
in the transcript, S.J.’s account in the forensic interview was consistent with S.J.’s
3 testimony at trial. In the interview, S.J. also described specific instances of abuse, including
when Bibiano would touch her while she was sleeping, when he would touch her in the
shower, and one instance when he tried to put his penis in her vagina and she felt a small
amount of liquid. S.J. stated in the interview that the abuse originally occurred “almost
every single day” but slowed to once or twice a month.
Bibiano’s Testimony
Bibiano testified in his own defense as follows. Bibiano never shared a bed with S.J.
and he would never wake her up at night to sleep with him. He and S.J. had a good
relationship, but S.J. hated her younger half-sister (Bibiano and C.J.’s daughter). In 2020,
C.J. kicked Bibiano out, and he went to live with C.J.’s sister. Bibiano did not see his
children for “probably around one year” after he moved out and did not have any of the
children overnight from 2020 to August 2024. In August 2024, the children—including
S.J.—stayed with him for two weeks. During that time, Bibiano did not sleep in the same
bed with S.J., did not touch her inappropriately, and did not discuss S.J.’s period with C.J.
C.J. must have manipulated S.J. into making these allegations. C.J. thought Bibiano was in
a relationship with C.J.’s sister, but he was not.
Charges, Conviction, and Sentence
Bibiano was charged with two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct in
violation of Minnesota Statutes section 609.342, subdivision 1(h)(iii) (2020). Following
the bench trial, the district court filed its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order,
finding Bibiano guilty on both counts. The district court found that “[Bibiano’s] testimony
4 was not credible.” Bibiano was sentenced to 172 months in prison and received a ten-year
term of conditional release.
This appeal follows.
DECISION
Bibiano’s only argument on appeal is that the evidence is insufficient to support his
conviction because it rests solely on S.J.’s uncorroborated testimony.
“In considering a claim of insufficiency of the evidence, [the reviewing court] must
ascertain whether, given the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences that can be
drawn from those facts, a jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of
the offense charged.” State v. Jones, 4 N.W.3d 495, 501-02 (Minn. 2024) (quotation
omitted). “[Appellate courts] use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury
trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.” State v. Palmer, 803 N.W.2d 727, 733
(Minn. 2011).
The applicable sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard of review depends on whether
the conviction rests on direct or circumstantial evidence. See State v. Firkus, 31 N.W.3d
468, 478 & n.6 (Minn. 2026). “Direct evidence is evidence that is based on personal
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A25-1322
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
vs.
Ricardo Lopez Bibiano, Appellant.
Filed June 15, 2026 Affirmed Smith, Tracy M., Judge
Sibley County District Court File No. 72-CR-24-214
Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and
Donald E. Lannoye, Sibley County Attorney, Gaylord, Minesota (for respondent)
Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Eva F. Wailes, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Wheelock, Presiding Judge; Connolly, Judge; and
Smith, Tracy M., Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
SMITH, TRACY M., Judge
On direct appeal from the final judgment of conviction for two counts of first-degree
criminal sexual conduct following a bench trial, appellant Ricardo Lopez Bibiano argues
that respondent State of Minnesota failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Specifically, he argues that the evidence is insufficient because the testimony of the
complainant—his stepdaughter—was not corroborated. We affirm.
FACTS
The following evidence was introduced at trial.
C.J.’s Testimony
Bibiano’s wife, C.J., testified as follows. Bibiano and C.J. began a relationship in
2013. The following year, Bibiano moved in with C.J. and her daughter, S.J., who was
around one year old. C.J. and Bibiano eventually married and had two joint children. C.J.
and Bibiano sometimes fought, and he moved in and out of her house multiple times. When
C.J. began working nights, Bibiano would be the only adult home watching the children.
Around 2023, C.J. started noticing a change in S.J.’s personality and that she had stopped
enjoying things and had begun fighting with her siblings more. In August 2024, when S.J.
was 11 years old, Bibiano told C.J. that S.J. had “started her period.” C.J. asked S.J. about
it, and S.J. told C.J. that her period had lasted more than a week. When it continued for a
few more days, C.J. took S.J. to a clinic. At the clinic, while C.J. was present, S.J. told a
nurse that her stepfather had been sexually abusing her.
S.J.’s Testimony
S.J. testified as follows. S.J.’s mother worked nights, and there were times when
Bibiano would be alone with S.J. at night while the other children were asleep. In 2019,
when S.J. was seven years old and in first grade, Bibiano “would put his hand on [her]
chest and he would grab [her] butt and . . . over [her] clothes he would touch [her] vagina
and he would kiss [her] on [her] cheek and [her] mouth.” This would happen about three
2 times a week when she was in first grade, and it continued through second grade. When
S.J. was eight years old, Bibiano began touching her chest area, vagina, and butt under her
clothes, and that conduct continued in third grade. Bibiano would also undress S.J. and “try
putting his penis inside of [S.J.].” Bibiano put his penis in S.J.’s vagina three times, but
other times she “would like move away and stuff and kick him and try to put [her] clothes
back on so he wouldn’t do anything.” This continued into fourth grade, when it stopped for
a period of time and then resumed, continuing through fifth grade. In July 2024, when S.J.
was in fifth grade, Bibiano’s conduct stopped. S.J. initially did not tell anyone about the
abuse because she was scared of Bibiano, but she eventually told the nurse at the clinic.
During cross-examination, S.J. acknowledged that her mom and Bibiano would have
verbal arguments, that S.J.’s mom was upset because Bibiano was dating S.J.’s mom’s
sister, and that S.J. was happier now that Bibiano had moved out.
Police Interview
A police officer was called to the clinic the day that S.J. disclosed the sexual abuse,
and he interviewed S.J. and C.J. A transcript of the interview was submitted into evidence
at trial. S.J.’s and C.J.’s statements in the interview are consistent with their trial testimony.
Forensic Examination
After S.J. was interviewed by the police officer, she was referred for a forensic
interview with a social worker. The social worker, D.K., testified at trial regarding her
training and experience and that, in August 2024, she conducted the forensic interview of
S.J. The transcript of D.K.’s interview of S.J. was then admitted into evidence. As reflected
in the transcript, S.J.’s account in the forensic interview was consistent with S.J.’s
3 testimony at trial. In the interview, S.J. also described specific instances of abuse, including
when Bibiano would touch her while she was sleeping, when he would touch her in the
shower, and one instance when he tried to put his penis in her vagina and she felt a small
amount of liquid. S.J. stated in the interview that the abuse originally occurred “almost
every single day” but slowed to once or twice a month.
Bibiano’s Testimony
Bibiano testified in his own defense as follows. Bibiano never shared a bed with S.J.
and he would never wake her up at night to sleep with him. He and S.J. had a good
relationship, but S.J. hated her younger half-sister (Bibiano and C.J.’s daughter). In 2020,
C.J. kicked Bibiano out, and he went to live with C.J.’s sister. Bibiano did not see his
children for “probably around one year” after he moved out and did not have any of the
children overnight from 2020 to August 2024. In August 2024, the children—including
S.J.—stayed with him for two weeks. During that time, Bibiano did not sleep in the same
bed with S.J., did not touch her inappropriately, and did not discuss S.J.’s period with C.J.
C.J. must have manipulated S.J. into making these allegations. C.J. thought Bibiano was in
a relationship with C.J.’s sister, but he was not.
Charges, Conviction, and Sentence
Bibiano was charged with two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct in
violation of Minnesota Statutes section 609.342, subdivision 1(h)(iii) (2020). Following
the bench trial, the district court filed its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order,
finding Bibiano guilty on both counts. The district court found that “[Bibiano’s] testimony
4 was not credible.” Bibiano was sentenced to 172 months in prison and received a ten-year
term of conditional release.
This appeal follows.
DECISION
Bibiano’s only argument on appeal is that the evidence is insufficient to support his
conviction because it rests solely on S.J.’s uncorroborated testimony.
“In considering a claim of insufficiency of the evidence, [the reviewing court] must
ascertain whether, given the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences that can be
drawn from those facts, a jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of
the offense charged.” State v. Jones, 4 N.W.3d 495, 501-02 (Minn. 2024) (quotation
omitted). “[Appellate courts] use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury
trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.” State v. Palmer, 803 N.W.2d 727, 733
(Minn. 2011).
The applicable sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard of review depends on whether
the conviction rests on direct or circumstantial evidence. See State v. Firkus, 31 N.W.3d
468, 478 & n.6 (Minn. 2026). “Direct evidence is evidence that is based on personal
knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.”
Jones, 4 N.W.3d at 501 (quotations omitted). Direct evidence includes witness testimony
“when it reflects a witness’s personal observations and allows the jury to find the defendant
guilty without having to draw any inferences.” State v. Horst, 880 N.W.2d 24, 40 (Minn.
2016). Here, the findings of fact supporting the conviction were derived from S.J.’s
testimony describing the offenses. This is direct evidence.
5 “When a conviction is based on direct evidence, the traditional standard for
evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence applies . . . .” Jones, 4 N.W.3d at 501. Under the
traditional standard, the reviewing court conducts “a painstaking analysis of the record to
determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction,
was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” State v. Webb, 440
N.W.2d 426, 430 (Minn. 1989).
A person commits first-degree criminal sexual conduct when they engage in
multiple instances of sexual penetration over an extended period of time with a person
under age 16 with whom they have a significant relationship. Minn. Stat. § 609.342,
subd. 1(h)(iii). “Significant relationship” includes a relationship between a stepdaughter
and a stepfather. Minn. Stat. § 609.341, subd. 15(1) (2020).
Bibiano argues that S.J.’s testimony is insufficient on its own to sustain his
conviction because it was not corroborated. He emphasizes that there were no other
witnesses to the alleged conduct and no physical evidence.
It is well-settled that, generally, “a conviction can rest on the uncorroborated
testimony of a single credible witness.” State v. Foreman, 680 N.W.2d 536, 539 (Minn.
2004) (quoting State v. Hill, 172 N.W.2d 406, 407 (Minn. 1969)); see also State v.
Nestaval, 75 N.W. 725, 726 (Minn. 1898) (“It was not the duty of the jury to count the
number of witnesses, and render a verdict in accordance with the majority of them, but to
weigh the testimony, and render a verdict accordingly.”). And specifically for prosecutions
of criminal sexual conduct, Minnesota Statutes state that “the testimony of a victim need
not be corroborated.” Minn. Stat. § 609.347, subd. 1 (2020).
6 But “the absence of corroboration in an individual case may well call for a holding
that there is insufficient evidence upon which a jury could find the defendant guilty beyond
a reasonable doubt.” State v. Ani, 257 N.W.2d 699, 700 (Minn. 1977) (quotation omitted).
Corroboration may be required when there are “additional reasons to question the victim’s
credibility,” Foreman, 680 N.W.2d at 539, or “unusual circumstances that would justify a
determination that [the victim’s] testimony was not reliable,” State v. Balsley, 999 N.W.2d
880, 887 (Minn. App. 2023), aff’d, 10 N.W.3d 671 (Minn. 2024).
Bibiano cites three cases in which convictions based on a single witness were
overturned due to “additional reasons to question the victim’s credibility.” In State v. Huss,
the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed a conviction for second-degree criminal sexual
conduct because an expert testified that the sole child witness was heavily influenced by
books and a video about sexual abuse. 506 N.W.2d 290, 292-93 (Minn. 1993). In State v.
Langteau, the supreme court reversed a conviction of aggravated robbery because there
were significant holes in the alleged victim’s testimony. 268 N.W.2d 76, 77 (Minn. 1978).
And in State v. Gluff, the supreme court reversed a conviction of aggravated robbery
because the sole witness had limited time to observe the suspect and there were flaws in
the identification process. 172 N.W.2d 63, 65 (Minn. 1969).
Each of these cases contained unusual circumstances or additional reasons in
evidence to doubt the witness’s credibility. This is not the case here. There is no evidence
that S.J.’s testimony was affected by any suggestive material or had inconsistencies or
unexplained holes in her version of events.
7 Bibiano argues that S.J. may have fabricated her story to keep Bibiano from moving
back in with her. He cites as support S.J.’s testimony that she is happier without Bibiano
in the house, the likelihood that Bibiano and C.J.’s fighting caused S.J. stress, S.J.’s anger
towards Bibiano for treating S.J.’s half-brother poorly, and S.J.’s jealousy of her younger
sister since, unlike her sister, S.J. did not have a relationship with her biological father. But
none of these asserted facts present an “unusual circumstance” justifying doubt about S.J.’s
testimony. It is not surprising that S.J. is happier without Bibiano in the house given the
prolonged abuse she described. And while S.J. may have disliked other things about
Bibiano’s conduct, there is no evidence in the record showing that they led her to fabricate
her testimony. And to the extent that Bibiano’s argument rests on his own testimony, the
district court found his testimony not credible. Bibiano’s argument amounts to nothing
more than speculation.
Because there are no unusual circumstances or additional reasons to doubt S.J.’s
credibility, her uncorroborated testimony is sufficient to sustain Bibiano’s conviction. 1 See
Minn. Stat. § 609.347, subd. 1.
Affirmed.
1 The parties disagree on whether S.J.’s testimony was corroborated. Because we determine that S.J.’s uncorroborated testimony is sufficient to sustain Bibiano’s conviction, we need not discuss whether other evidence corroborated it.