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 found guilty of four counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM) under thirteen after a jury trial. The charges stemmed from allegations that the Defendant touched or rubbed the vaginal area of two victims over their clothes on separate occasions while they were spending the night at the house he shared with their grandmother. Each victim testified that these incidents occurred twice, totaling four instances within the charged time frame (para 3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his CSCM convictions, particularly because one victim's testimony did not distinguish between the two alleged incidents of CSCM, suggesting that at least one count should be dismissed based on precedent from State v. Huerta-Castro (paras 1-2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: The summary does not detail the Plaintiff-Appellee's specific arguments in response to the Defendant-Appellant's claims, but it is implied that they argued for the sufficiency of the evidence based on the victims' testimonies and the legal standards for upholding a conviction (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions for four counts of CSCM, particularly in light of the argument that one victim's testimony did not provide distinguishing facts between the two alleged incidents (para 2).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment and sentence, rejecting the Defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions (para 4).

Reasons

• Per Julie J. Vargas, with Jennifer L. Attrep and Kristina Bogardus concurring, the Court found the Defendant's argument regarding the insufficiency of evidence unpersuasive. The Court highlighted that both victims testified to the Defendant's inappropriate actions within the alleged time frame, which, according to legal precedent, could constitute sufficient evidence to uphold a conviction. The Court also noted that the Defendant's reliance on State v. Huerta-Castro was misplaced, as the testimonies and jury instructions in the current case were not sufficiently similar to those in Huerta-Castro to warrant a reversal of the convictions. The decision was based on the principle that the testimony of a single witness can be enough to support a conviction, and in this case, the testimonies of both victims were deemed sufficient (paras 1-3).