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, a door-to-door vacuum cleaner salesman, was invited into the Victim's home for a demonstration. During the visit, the Victim, aiming to avoid being beaten and raped as she had been in the past, offered to engage in oral sex with the Defendant, which led to consensual oral sex but non-consensual anal sex where the Defendant forcibly continued despite the Victim's request to stop. The Defendant was arrested, indicted, and convicted for criminal sexual penetration (CSP) in the third degree.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court abused its discretion by denying a request for a statement of facts, denying a motion for the Victim's medical and psychological records, and failing to properly instruct the jury on mental capacity and unlawfulness.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the Defendant was provided with sufficient information to prepare a defense, that the request for the Victim's records was rightfully denied due to lack of demonstrated prejudice, and that the jury instructions were appropriate and not confusing.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the Defendant's request for a statement of facts.
• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion for the Victim's medical and psychological records.
• Whether the district court failed to properly instruct the jury on mental capacity and unlawfulness.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the conviction of the Defendant for criminal sexual penetration in the third degree.

Reasons

• B. Zamora, J., with Jacqueline R. Medina, J., and Jane B. Yohalem, J., concurring, held that the Defendant was not entitled to a statement of facts as he had received sufficient information to prepare a defense through the indictment, State's discovery, and grand jury materials (paras 3-6). The court found no abuse of discretion in denying the request for the Victim's records, as the Defendant failed to demonstrate how the denial prejudiced his defense, especially since the State did not ultimately pursue a mental incapacity theory at trial (paras 8-11). Regarding jury instructions, the court determined that the Defendant was not entitled to an instruction on mental incapacity as the State proceeded under a theory of physical force, and the jury was not confused or misled by the instructions given. The court also found no error in the instruction on unlawfulness, as it was given in accordance with the relevant Use Notes (paras 12-20).