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 criminal sexual contact of a minor following a jury trial. The Defendant appealed the conviction, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and alleging prosecutorial misconduct based on a statement made during the closing argument.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued that the weight of the evidence supported his version of events and that the jury should have returned a verdict of not guilty. He also contended that prosecutorial misconduct occurred during the closing argument, which invaded his right to a fair trial and due process (paras 2, 3).
• Appellee: The State presumably argued for the sufficiency of the evidence and against the claim of prosecutorial misconduct, although specific arguments from the State are not detailed in the provided text.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for criminal sexual contact of a minor.
• Whether prosecutorial misconduct occurred during the closing argument, potentially affecting the fairness of the trial.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court, rejecting the Defendant's challenges regarding the sufficiency of the evidence and the claim of prosecutorial misconduct (para 5).

Reasons

• Per J. MILES HANISEE, with LINDA M. VANZI and ZACHARY A. IVES, Judges concurring:
  The Court held that it is not its role to reweigh evidence presented at trial, deferring instead to the credibility assessments made by the jury. The Court found that the testimony of the victim alone was sufficient to support the conviction (para 2). Regarding the claim of prosecutorial misconduct, the Court assessed the State's closing argument comment under a three-factor test but concluded that the isolated comment did not rise to the level of fundamental error. The Court determined that the general right to a fair trial is not the type of "distinct" constitutional protection discussed in the context of prosecutorial misconduct and found that the comment, while an impermissible appeal to fight crime, did not deprive the Defendant of a fair trial (paras 3-4).