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 several sexual offenses against a minor under 13, including criminal sexual penetration in the first degree, attempt to commit criminal sexual penetration in the second degree (though the judgment misstated the crime), and criminal sexual contact of a minor in the third degree.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued that the district court erred by not allowing defense counsel to inquire about prospective jurors' voting in a previous unrelated case, claimed due process was violated due to unduly broad charging dates, contested the refusal of his tendered jury instructions, challenged the sentence for attempted criminal sexual contact as excessive, objected to the inclusion of a term of probation, and disputed the denial of good time credit for the attempt to commit criminal sexual penetration in the second degree.
• Appellee: The State indicated it would not file a memorandum in opposition to the Defendant's claims.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in refusing to allow defense counsel to inquire about prospective jurors' voting in a previous unrelated case.
• Whether the Defendant was denied due process by unduly broad charging dates.
• Whether the district court erred in refusing to instruct the jury with the Defendant's tendered instructions.
• Whether the sentence for attempted criminal sexual contact in the second degree was excessive.
• Whether the inclusion of a term of probation in the judgment and sentence was erroneous.
• Whether the denial of good time credit for the attempt to commit criminal sexual penetration in the second degree was improper.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the convictions on issues 1-3.
• The court remanded on issue 4 for correction of a clerical error.
• The court reversed and remanded for re-sentencing on issues 5-6.

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Judge (RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge, and J. MILES HANISEE, Judge concurring):
  On the issue of voir dire questioning, the court found no abuse of discretion by the district court in limiting inquiries about jurors' previous votes due to the confidentiality of the jury process and the speculative nature of the Defendant's claim.
  Regarding the broad charging dates, the court determined that the Defendant did not suffer due process prejudice as he was not charged and convicted for acts outside the three-month period specified in the charging documents.
  The court held that omitting the element of unlawfulness from a jury instruction was not error when the predicate act is inherently unlawful, and thus, the Defendant's requested instructions were properly refused.
  The sentence for attempted criminal sexual contact in the second degree was found to be correct under the law for crimes involving a sexual offense against a child, but a clerical error in the judgment needed correction.
  The inclusion of a term of probation was reversed because the district court imposed the maximum period of incarceration without deferring or suspending any portion of the sentence, making the probation term improper.
  The denial of good time credit for the attempt crime was reversed as it is not one of the enumerated crimes eligible for the denial of good time credit.