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 arrested and charged with eight counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM) in the third degree, with the victims being children under 13. After a grand jury indictment, the Defendant posted bond with conditions, including no contact with any family members. The trial, initially set for March 2, 2015, was rescheduled eight times, eventually occurring on April 4, 2016. The State dismissed six of the eight charges against the Defendant, who was then convicted on the remaining two counts (para 1).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court violated his right to a speedy trial and committed reversible error by allowing an expert to vouch for the victim's credibility (para 2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Conceded that the admission of the testimony that vouched for the victim's credibility was error warranting a new trial (para 17).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court violated the Defendant's right to a speedy trial.
• Whether the district court committed reversible error by allowing an expert to vouch for the victim's credibility.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the district court's denial of the Defendant's motion for violation of his right to a speedy trial.
• The court reversed the district court's decision regarding the admission of testimony bolstering the credibility of the alleged victim and remanded the matter for a new trial (para 18).

Reasons

• M. Monica Zamora, Chief Judge, with Julie J. Vargas and Jacqueline R. Medina, Judges concurring, provided the reasoning for the decision. The court applied the four-factor test from Barker v. Wingo to assess the speedy trial claim, considering the length of delay, reasons for delay, the defendant's assertion of the right, and prejudice to the defendant. The court found the case to be of intermediate complexity and determined that the delay of twenty months, five months beyond the threshold for intermediate cases, weighed slightly against the State. The reasons for delay, primarily due to the State's requests for continuance and a congested court system, also weighed slightly against the State. The Defendant's repeated assertions of his right to a speedy trial weighed slightly in his favor, despite not opposing the State's continuances. However, the Defendant failed to demonstrate actual prejudice from the delay. On the issue of expert testimony vouching for the victim's credibility, the court agreed with the State's concession that this was error warranting a new trial, as it improperly influenced the credibility determination, which was a pivotal issue at trial (paras 2-17).