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 second-degree criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM) after allegedly placing his girlfriend’s ten-year-old daughter’s hand on his unclothed penis while she was sleeping between him and her brother. The child reported the incident to her mother, who dismissed it as a dream or misunderstanding. The Defendant and the child's mother provided conflicting testimony regarding the child's presence in the house on the night of the incident and her credibility (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant: Argued that the State presented insufficient evidence to support the conviction, the district court violated his rights to due process and confrontation by not requiring the police case agent to testify, and erred in sentencing him for second-degree CSCM because his conduct should be classified as a third-degree felony under the relevant statute (paras 1, 4).
• State: Contended that there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction and that the district court did not violate the Defendant's rights. The State also argued that the Defendant's conduct was appropriately classified and sentenced under second-degree CSCM (paras 5, 9, 14, 19).

Legal Issues

• Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for second-degree CSCM.
• Whether the district court violated the Defendant's rights to due process and confrontation by not requiring the police case agent to testify.
• Whether the district court erred in sentencing the Defendant for second-degree CSCM instead of third-degree CSCM based on the jury instruction and the Defendant's conduct (paras 1, 4, 5, 8, 14).

Disposition

• The court held that the State presented sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction and did not violate the Defendant's confrontation or due process rights. However, it found that the Defendant's conduct amounted to a third-degree felony under the relevant statute, not a second-degree felony. Therefore, the court reversed the CSCM conviction under second-degree felony and remanded for entry of a CSCM conviction under third-degree felony (para 23).

Reasons

• JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge (JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge, LINDA M. VANZI, Judge concurring): The court found that the child's testimony was sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that the Defendant committed CSCM by causing her to touch his unclothed penis, fulfilling the requirements for a CSCM conviction. The court also determined that the district court did not limit the Defendant's ability to confront or cross-examine witnesses, as the State did not call the police case agent as a witness or use his investigation to prove its case. Regarding the degree of charge, the court concluded that the Defendant's conduct, as reflected in the jury instruction, constituted third-degree CSCM under the statute, not second-degree CSCM. The court emphasized that the statute specifically limits second-degree CSCM to instances where a defendant touches or applies force to the unclothed intimate parts of a minor, which was not the case here (paras 5-6, 8-13, 16-22).