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 of two counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM), involving a child under thirteen. The charges were based on allegations that the Defendant touched the child's vulva and buttocks. During the trial, the child, who was six years old at the time, could not recall the incident, leading the State to submit a forensic interview as evidence, in which the child had described the incident. The interview included details of the Defendant touching her genitals and buttocks, exposing himself, and forcing the child to sit on his lap.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the district court erred in admitting the child's forensic interview under the recorded recollection exception to the hearsay rule and contended that his two CSCM convictions violated double jeopardy principles.
• Appellee (State): Defended the district court's decision to admit the forensic interview under the recorded recollection exception to the hearsay rule and argued that the Defendant's convictions did not violate double jeopardy principles.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in admitting the child's forensic interview under the recorded recollection exception to the hearsay rule.
• Whether the Defendant's two CSCM convictions violate double jeopardy principles.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the forensic interview was properly admitted under the recorded recollection exception to the hearsay rule and that the Defendant's two CSCM convictions did not violate double jeopardy principles.

Reasons

• Per BOGARDUS, J. (HANISEE, J., and IVES, J., concurring):
  The Court found that the forensic interview was admissible under the recorded recollection exception to the hearsay rule, as it was made when the incident was fresh in the child's memory and accurately reflected her knowledge (paras 3-11). The Court distinguished this case from State v. Macias, noting that the child in this case did not deny participating in the interview or disclaim the accuracy of the information provided (paras 5-7).
  Regarding the double jeopardy claim, the Court conducted a de novo review and determined that the Legislature intended punishment for each discrete act of CSCM. The Court found sufficient indicia of distinctness between the two acts based on the timing, location, sequencing of the acts, the existence of an intervening event, the defendant's intent, and the number of victims (paras 12-17). The Court concluded that the two acts of CSCM bore sufficient indicia of distinctness to support multiple punishments (para 17).