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, Blake Green, was convicted of second-degree criminal sexual penetration of a minor (CSPM) and fourth-degree criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM) following an incident involving a fourteen-year-old victim, B.P., and another minor, N.P. The incident occurred on May 10, 2009, at the home where the defendant lived. B.P. testified that the defendant forced himself upon her despite her requests for him to stop, resulting in a sexual assault. N.P. testified that the defendant touched her breast and attempted further unwanted contact, which ceased when she expressed refusal.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the State failed to present sufficient evidence of force or coercion to support his convictions for CSPM and CSCM. Additionally, raised issues regarding the district court's handling of jury instructions, the amendment of the criminal information on the day of trial, the denial of a continuance request, and claimed ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Maintained that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the convictions for both CSPM and CSCM. Defended the district court's decisions regarding jury instructions, the amendment of criminal information, and the handling of the defendant's requests for continuance and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence of force or coercion to sustain the defendant's convictions for CSPM and CSCM.
• Whether the district court committed fundamental error in its handling of jury instructions, specifically regarding the provision of N.P.'s testimony and the issuance of a "shotgun instruction."
• Whether it was error to allow the State to amend the criminal information on the day of trial.
• Whether the district court erred in failing to grant the defense counsel’s request for a continuance.
• Whether the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel.

Disposition

• The conviction for CSPM was affirmed.
• The conviction for CSCM was reversed.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Linda M. Vanzi, with Judges James J. Wechsler and Timothy L. Garcia concurring, found substantial evidence supporting the conviction for CSPM, citing testimony from B.P. and evidence from a sexual assault nurse examiner and a forensic DNA analyst. The court concluded that the defendant used force against B.P., fulfilling the elements required for CSPM conviction. However, the court agreed with the defendant that the State failed to establish sufficient evidence for the CSCM conviction, specifically lacking evidence of "force or coercion" in N.P.'s testimony. The court did not find the district court's instruction to the jury as coercive ("shotgun instruction") and ruled that the amendment of the criminal information and the denial of a continuance did not prejudice the defendant's rights. Lastly, the court determined that the defendant did not establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel, noting that the decisions made by the defense could be seen as strategic.