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, Dakota Smallcanyon, who was convicted for criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM) under thirteen. The incident occurred when the victim, P.B., an eleven-year-old, was sleeping on a couch and woke up to the Defendant touching her breast and vagina. The Defendant, P.B.'s uncle, lived with P.B., her mother, and siblings. During the trial, the Defendant denied the allegations, claiming his intention was to wake P.B. up by placing his cold hands on her, suggesting a lawful purpose for the contact.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the district court erred by not granting a mistrial, claimed prosecutorial misconduct, contended the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction, and asserted that the district court committed fundamental error by failing to provide an instruction on an essential element of the crime (unlawfulness).
• Appellee (State): Argued that the Defendant's denial of touching P.B. in a sexual manner meant the unlawfulness of any touching was not at issue, implying the evidence supported the conviction as charged.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by not instructing the jury on the element of unlawfulness, an essential element of CSCM.
• Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the Defendant's conviction.

Disposition

• The conviction for one count of CSCM under thirteen was reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Henderson writing the opinion, concurred by Judges Medina and Duffy, found that the district court committed fundamental error by failing to instruct the jury on the element of unlawfulness, an essential element of CSCM. The Court agreed with the Defendant that the element of unlawfulness was at issue, given the Defendant's testimony suggested a lawful purpose for the touching, which could have been for non-abusive parental or custodial care. This omission was deemed a fundamental error because it deprived the jury of the opportunity to consider whether the touching was unlawful, an essential component of the crime charged. The Court also reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence in light of the erroneous jury instruction and concluded that retrial was permissible because there was sufficient evidence to convict under the erroneous instruction provided to the jury (paras 1-13).