AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was convicted for Criminal Sexual Contact (CSC) of a minor. The conviction was based primarily on the statement of the child, with no physical evidence presented. The Defendant attempted to impeach the child's credibility by calling a "late" witness who would testify about drug transactions at the child's home, which the Defendant argued would contradict the child's testimony regarding the presence of drugs at her home. Additionally, the Defendant sought to question the child about interactions with another child involved in a different case where the Defendant was found not guilty, to suggest a conspiracy against him.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the denial to call a "late" witness to impeach the child's testimony was erroneous. Contended that the exclusion of this testimony contributed to his conviction. Also argued that denying his request to question the child about interactions with another child from a different case was an error. Claimed the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, citing a lack of physical evidence and his inability to impeach the child's credibility.
• Appellee (State): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the trial court erred by denying the Defendant the opportunity to call a "late" witness to impeach the child's testimony.
• Whether the trial court erred by prohibiting the Defendant from questioning the child about interactions with another child involved in a separate case.
• Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for CSC of a minor.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for CSC of a minor.

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Judge (MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge, and TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge concurring):
  The Court found the Defendant's arguments unpersuasive and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that the Defendant did not renew his argument that his sentence was excessive and thus affirmed on that issue based on precedent requiring a party to specifically point out errors of law and fact in response to a summary calendar notice. Regarding the "late" witness, the Court determined that the victim's testimony did not assert drugs were never present or sold from her home, thus the witness's potential testimony would not have contradicted the child's statements. The Court also found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision to limit cross-examination about a separate victim in a separate case, noting the lack of evidence to support the Defendant's conspiracy theory and the absence of cited authority for his claim. Finally, the Court concluded that the fact finder was presented with sufficient evidence to support the conviction, despite the Defendant's claims of a "swearing match" between him and the child due to the lack of physical evidence and his inability to impeach the child's credibility.