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 of a minor (CSCM) in the second degree, involving a child under 13 years old. The incident occurred when the Defendant and the Victim, a five-year-old girl, were at the Defendant's house. The Victim was playing with the Defendant's two-year-old son. During this time, the Defendant began spraying the children with water. The Victim alleged that the Defendant reached his hand inside her pants and underwear and touched her vulva.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the unlawfulness of the touching, contending that if any touching of the Victim's vulva occurred, it was inadvertent during innocent horseplay.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the unlawfulness of the touching as an element of CSCM.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction.

Reasons

• The Court, led by Judge Timothy L. Garcia with Judges Michael D. Bustamante and Roderick T. Kennedy concurring, held that the district court properly instructed the jury. The Court reasoned that an instruction on the unlawfulness of a touching is required only when the element of unlawfulness is factually in dispute. In this case, the Defendant did not dispute the touching but argued it could have been inadvertent during innocent horseplay. However, the Court found no evidence to support the Defendant's theory that the touching could have been lawful or inadvertent. The Court distinguished between reversible error and fundamental error analyses, emphasizing that the submission of a jury instruction depends on whether the evidence supports it. Since no reasonable inference could be drawn from the evidence that the lawfulness of the touching was at issue, the Court concluded that the district court properly denied the Defendant's tendered jury instructions on unlawfulness.