MN: CA suspect in 2003 St. Paul rape is charged after testing of DNA evidence

Source: 10/10/23

[ACSOL note: we are posting this to show how an unusually long delay of charges is possible, even reaching to another state]

Since 2012, the Ramsey County Attorney’s Office and its law enforcement partners have been chipping away at their backlog of sexual assault kits holding evidence in unsolved cases.  
By Paul Walsh Star Tribune

Testing of DNA evidence nearly 20 years after it was collected has led to a man’s arrest on allegations that he raped a woman in a vehicle.

Shawn P. ____, 48, was charged in Ramsey County District Court last week with first-degree criminal sexual conduct in connection with the assault of a longtime friend soon after they met at a bar on Dec. 28, 2003.

____, of St. Paul, was arrested Saturday, appeared in court Monday and was released on $80,000 bond. He’s due back in court on Nov. 2. A message was left Tuesday with his attorney seeking a response to the allegations.

Since 2012, the Ramsey County Attorney’s Office and its law enforcement partners have been chipping away at their backlog of sexual assault kits holding evidence in unsolved cases. As of this week, according to the County Attorney’s Office, its backlog sits at fewer than 30 cases.

The break in the case came in August 2023, when the DNA was eventually tested and a match pointing to ___ came back during a periodic profile search of the Minnesota DNA database.

After being notified of the match, the woman told law enforcement that she wanted to proceed with charging Skie for a crime that “has ruined her life,” the criminal complaint read.

Read the full article


Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Not on a registry for 20 years because a state failed to actually process the evidence they held on to for almost 20 years.

And had he been on the registry, the media would have pounced with a neon sign: headline: “Convicted Sex Offender is charged again.”

So if he raped a “longtime friend” 20 years ago, I assume its safe to say she knew who he was, so my question is why weren’t charges filed against him 20 years ago? Why did it take a DNA match?