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 parents of three minor daughters discovered sexually explicit text messages from the Defendant, a middle-aged cousin, to their ten-year-old daughter in December 2013. Following a police investigation and examination by a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners (SANE) nurse, evidence emerged that the Defendant had sexually abused all three daughters from 2010 to 2013. The family had lived at five different addresses during this period, with the Defendant staying with them at times and often babysitting the children (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that his convictions violated double jeopardy and due process, challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for certain convictions, claimed error in allowing the State to amend the indictment, and objected to the admission of vouching testimony (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the convictions were supported by sufficient evidence, the amendment of the indictment was permissible, and the challenged testimony did not constitute improper vouching (paras 5-34).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's convictions violated his rights to due process and to be free from double jeopardy.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions.
• Whether the trial court erred in allowing the State to amend the indictment.
• Whether the admission of vouching testimony was improper (para 1).

Disposition

• The court reversed the Defendant’s conviction under Count 11 due to insufficient evidence but affirmed the remaining convictions (para 1).

Reasons

• The court found no due process or double jeopardy violations, as each count had distinguishing factual bases, and the Defendant had received adequate notice of the charges against him (paras 5-10). The court determined there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions for Counts 5, 6, 12, and 13, based on testimony from the victims and other witnesses, as well as text messages sent by the Defendant to one of the victims (paras 11-21). The court rejected the Defendant's argument that the amendment of the charging document after the close of evidence prejudiced his defense, finding that the amendments did not prevent the Defendant from being able to anticipate the nature of the proof against him (paras 27-30). Lastly, the court concluded that the challenged testimony did not constitute improper vouching that would warrant reversal under the plain error standard (paras 31-34).