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 case involves the Defendant, a neurologist, who was convicted of misdemeanor criminal sexual contact (CSC) after an examination with the Victim, an 18-year-old experiencing medical issues. During the examination, the Defendant directed the Victim to undress and proceeded to touch the Victim's genitals inappropriately, followed by a kiss on the neck and a hug where the Defendant pressed his erect penis against the Victim. The Defendant contested the Victim's account, claiming the examination was medically proper (para 2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction and that the district court abused its discretion by denying a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the jury instructions created an unnecessary element by using "and" instead of "or" regarding the touching of the Victim's penis and testicles, and that the evidence was sufficient for a conviction regardless (paras 5-6).

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction of CSC.
• Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the Defendant's motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, rejecting the Defendant's arguments regarding the sufficiency of evidence and the motion for a new trial (para 21).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Jacqueline R. Medina, J. Miles Hanisee, and Kristina Bogardus, held that the evidence was sufficient for a conviction. The Court found that the jury instructions did not add an essential element to the crime of CSC and that the State did not need to prove the Defendant touched both the Victim's penis and testicles to secure a conviction. The Court applied the principle that a sufficiency challenge should be assessed against the elements of the charged crime, not against the erroneously heightened command in the jury instruction, citing Musacchio v. United States. The Court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial because the newly discovered evidence was merely impeaching and did not meet the requirements for granting a new trial based on newly discovered evidence (paras 4-20).