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 multiple counts of criminal sexual penetration and contact against two victims, S.G. and S.P., with the crimes spanning several years. The Defendant challenged his conviction for first-degree criminal sexual penetration of a minor under thirteen (first-degree CSPM) on the grounds of insufficient evidence, improper recollection refreshment of S.G., and denial of recross-examination. Additionally, the Defendant argued that his convictions for second-degree CSPM were indistinguishable and violated his constitutional rights, and that an error in the jury instructions for one count of criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM) warranted reversal.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for first-degree CSPM, the court erred in allowing the State to refresh S.G.'s recollection and in denying the opportunity for recross-examination, the indistinguishable nature of convictions for second-degree CSPM violated constitutional rights, and an error in jury instructions for CSCM required reversal of that conviction.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the conviction for first-degree CSPM was supported by sufficient evidence, the process used to refresh S.G.'s recollection was proper, the convictions for second-degree CSPM did not violate double jeopardy, and the jury instruction for CSCM was not fundamentally erroneous.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for first-degree CSPM.
• Whether the court erred in allowing the State to refresh S.G.'s recollection and in denying the Defendant the opportunity for recross-examination.
• Whether the convictions for second-degree CSPM violated the Defendant's constitutional rights against double jeopardy.
• Whether an error in the jury instructions for CSCM requires reversal of that conviction.

Disposition

• The conviction for first-degree CSPM was reversed and remanded for a new trial.
• The three convictions for second-degree CSPM and both CSCM convictions were affirmed.

Reasons

• Sufficiency of Evidence for First-Degree CSPM: The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that the Defendant penetrated S.G. while she was under thirteen, based on S.G.'s testimony during redirect examination after being presented with the police report (paras 8-10).
  Process to Refresh S.G.'s Recollection: The court concluded that the district court abused its discretion in the manner it allowed the State to refresh S.G.'s recollection regarding her age at the time of the first penetration, leading to reversible error due to the lack of demonstration that S.G.'s memory was failing on this critical topic (paras 11-15).
  Denial of Recross-Examination: The court held that the district court's prohibition of recross-examination on new matter brought out during redirect examination constituted fundamental error, violating the Defendant's confrontation rights and requiring reversal of the first-degree CSPM conviction (paras 16-21).
  Double Jeopardy Concerns: The court disagreed with the Defendant's contention that his convictions for Counts 2 through 6 violated double jeopardy principles, noting that the charges were adequately differentiated by specific and distinct time periods and alleged distinct acts (paras 22-23).
  Jury Instruction for Count 4: The court was not persuaded that the jury instruction for Count 4 was fundamentally erroneous, as it required the jury to find that the conduct occurred before S.G. turned eighteen, thus not confusing or misdirecting a reasonable juror (paras 24).