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. The primary issue on appeal was the district court's decision to allow the victim's testimony through a video deposition (para 1).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court's written findings were insufficient to justify the admission of the victim's videotaped testimony. Specifically challenged the testimony of a mental health counselor regarding the victim's condition and ability to testify, contending that the record does not demonstrate a therapeutic relationship with the child or an evaluation of potential trauma from testifying in court (paras 2-3).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's written findings were sufficient to justify the admission of the victim's videotaped testimony (para 1).
• Whether the mental health counselor's testimony regarding the victim's condition and ability to testify was adequately supported by a therapeutic relationship or an evaluation of potential trauma from testifying in court (para 2).

Disposition

• The judgment of the district court was affirmed (para 5).

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge (HENRY M. BOHNHOFF, Judge, JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge concurring): The appellate court was unpersuaded by the Defendant's arguments against the district court's ruling on the victim's video deposition. The court noted that the Defendant's submissions did not adequately challenge the admissibility of the evidence but rather questioned the weight the district court should give to the counselor's testimony. The appellate court emphasized that it does not reweigh evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses, as these are matters for the district court. The Defendant's failure to clearly point out errors in fact or law in opposing the proposed summary disposition was also highlighted as a reason for affirming the district court's judgment (paras 2-5).