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

• Petitioner appealed the district court's dismissal of her petition for an order of protection against Respondent, who she alleged sexually assaulted her in the backseat of her automobile. The dismissal was based on a special commissioner's finding that the assault as described by Petitioner could not have occurred within the one- to two-minute timeframe shown in a surveillance video during which the parties were being intimate (para 1).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellant: Argued that the sexual assault described did occur during the intimate encounter in the backseat of her automobile, supported by her own testimony, a police officer's testimony, a SANE nurse's testimony and photographic evidence of her injuries, and a surveillance video (paras 2-3).
• Respondent-Appellee: Did not testify but argued, through counsel, a consent defense to the allegation of sexual assault. Respondent's memorandum in opposition suggested there was a dispute as to what sexual contact occurred but did not provide evidence to support this claim (paras 4, 9).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's order dismissing the petition for an order of protection was based on substantial evidence.
• Whether the petitioner's allegations of sexual assault were impossible within the one- to two-minute timeframe depicted in the surveillance video.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's order dismissing the petition for an order of protection and remanded for further proceedings (para 10).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, consisting of Judges Linda M. Vanzi, J. Miles Hanisee, and Julie J. Vargas, found that the district court's decision was not based on substantial evidence. The appellate court highlighted that the evidence included the petitioner's testimony, a police officer's testimony indicating Respondent admitted to hearing the petitioner say "stop, wait," and a SANE nurse's testimony and photographs of the petitioner's injuries, which were consistent with sexual assault. The court noted that the surveillance video did not visually depict the alleged assault or include internal time markers, and there was no analysis provided regarding the video's playback speed or completeness. The appellate court concluded that it was not reasonable to infer from the uncontradicted evidence that the petitioner's allegations were impossible within the short timeframe, especially given the lack of direct evidence or rational deduction to support such a finding. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the dismissal of the petition for an order of protection, emphasizing that the petitioner's burden was to establish that a sexual assault occurred based on the preponderance of the evidence under the Family Violence Protection Act, not beyond a reasonable doubt (paras 5-10).