State v. Roger A. Minck, 2022AP2292-CR, 5/28/25, District III (recommended for publication); case activity
In a case of first impression, the COA held in a decision recommended for publication that hiding a corpse with intent to conceal a crime under Wis. Stat. § 940.11(2) requires the State to prove the defendant intended to conceal any crime, not a crime related to the victim’s homicide. The COA found the evidence sufficient to affirm the jury’s verdict finding Roger Minck guilty of hiding a corpse.
At Minck’s trial for hiding “Thane’s” corpse, “Tyrone” testified that Thane was addicted to heroin and told him on November 5, 2018, that he was going to Minck’s home in Eau Claire to buy heroin from him. (¶ 5). The next day, a coworker reported Thane was missing after he did not report for his job as a postal carrier. On November 7, police found Thane’s unoccupied vehicle three to four minutes from Minck’s house. (¶ 6).
Police interviewed Minck on November 13, who said Thane was supposed to give him a ride between 4 and 6 p.m. on November 5 so that Minck could buy a car from Thane’s friend. Minck said Thane never arrived and he tried to call Thane at 5:15, but the call went to voicemail. Thane’s phone records showed that the cell phone towers used by his phone on November 5 were consistent with him driving from his home to Minck’s residence, his last outgoing phone calls were to Minck on November 5 at 4:57 and 4:59 p.m., and he received an incoming call from Minck at 4:58 p.m. The phone record did not show that Minck tried to call Thane after 4:59 p.m., contrary to what he told police. (¶ 10). Traffic camera footage from an intersection one to two blocks from Minck’s residence showed Thane’s vehicle toward Minck at 5:25 p.m. on November 5. (¶ 11).
Minck was again interviewed by police on December 6; he denied that he saw Thane on November 5, but admitted he sold oxycodone from his home. After the interview, police searched Minck’s home and found a glass pipe with methamphetamine residue, and prescription bottles of pills. Police also searched the attached duplex, which was rented by Minck’s brother Kenneth, who had been in jail since November 2. Minck said he did not have a key to Kenneth’s residence, but Kenneth testified that he left his keys on Minck’s coffee table before he went to jail. In Kenneth’s residence, police found a corpse on the floor identified as Thane that was partially covered by a tarp; plastic sheeting was found underneath Thane. A DNA analyst testified that Minck’s DNA was found on the tarp and plastic sheeting. The forensic pathologist testified that Thane’s cause of death was mixed drug toxicity and that his blood contained fentanyl, methamphetamine, amphetamine, morphine, nicotine, cotinine, and oxycodone. (¶¶ 12-19).
Minck testified that Thane was supposed to drive him to a scrapyard to buy a car on November 5, but never arrived. He denied that he was involved in Thane’s death or that he moved or concealed Thane’s corpse. Minck also testified that he did not have Kenneth’s house keys. Minck admitted that he gave ten pills to Thane two weeks before his death and gave pills to his friend Schofield. Schofield testified that he bought 60 oxycodone pills from Minck on November 18 for $300. (¶¶ 20-22).
The jury found Minck guilty of hiding a corpse.
On appeal, Minck argued that the evidence was insufficient: 1) to find that he was the person who hid Thane’s corpse; and 2) to find that he hid Thane’s corpse with intent to conceal a crime.
The COA found the following “ample circumstantial evidence” that Minck was the person who hid Thane’s corpse: 1) Thane was near Minck’s residence when he disappeared on November 5; 2) Thane told Tyrone that he was driving to Minck’s to buy heroin; 3) Thane’s phone used cell phone towers that tracked his movement from his residence to Minck’s home; 4) Thane’s phone records showed that he spoke to Minck at 4:57, 4:58, and 4:59 p.m.; 5) traffic camera footage showed Thane one to two blocks away from Minck at 5:25 p.m.; 6) all incoming calls to Thane went to voicemail after 5:31 p.m.; 7) Thane’s corpse was found in the duplex apartment next to Minck and rented by his brother; 8) Minck admitted at trial that he owned the tarp and plastic sheeting found on Thane’s corpse; 9) Minck’s DNA was found on the tarp and plastic; and 10) Minck’s brother testified that he left his keys on Minck’s coffee table. (¶¶ 29-32). The Court rejected Minck’s argument that the State did not prove he had exclusive access to his brother’s residence because the State needed only to prove he had access. (¶ 36).
Regarding the elements of the offense, Wis. Stat. § 940.11(2) provides that “[w]hoever hides or buries a corpse, with intent to conceal a crime . . . is guilty of a Class F felony.” The State’s theory was that Minck hid Thane’s body with intent to conceal Minck’s oxycodone sales. Minck argued that the State was required to prove that he hid the victim’s corpse with intent to conceal a homicide.
The Court recognized there are no published opinions regarding the intent element of § 940.11(2), but found the plain language of the statute “merely requires that a person hide a corpse ‘with intent to conceal a crime.’ The statute does not specify the type of crime that the person must intend to conceal.” (¶ 43).
The Court found the evidence sufficient for the jury to conclude that Minck hid Thane’s corpse to conceal Minck’s drug trafficking because Minck admitted to police that he sold oxycodone from his home and testified at trial that he gave Thane ten oxycodone pills two weeks before he disappeared. The Court also noted that police found empty pill bottles and a glass pipe with methamphetamine residue in Minck’s residence. (¶ 45). Notably, the jury found Minck guilty of delivering oxycodone and he did not challenge the sufficiency of evidence to support the conviction. (¶ 46).
The Court concluded: “the jury could reasonably infer that Thane died of a drug overdose while at Minck’s residence on November 5, 2018. The jury could further reasonably infer that Minck then hid Thane’s corpse with the intent to conceal Minck’s illegal drug trafficking because, if Minck reported Thane’s death, law enforcement would have come to Minck’s home to investigate and, in the ensuing investigation, may have discovered evidence of Minck’s drug sales.” (¶ 46).
Finally, the Court determined that, even if the charge required proof that Minck hid Thane’s corpse to conceal his homicide, the evidence was sufficient for a guilty verdict: “the jury could reasonably infer that Thane died of a drug overdose in Minck’s residence and that, thereafter, Minck would have feared being held criminally responsible for Thane’s death, even if Minck did not provide Thane with fentanyl or heroin.” (¶ 52)
