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 eight counts of third-degree criminal sexual penetration (CSP III), one count of first-degree kidnapping, and one count of aggravated battery against a household member. The incidents involved the Defendant and the Victim, with the Defendant engaging in non-consensual sexual acts with the Victim, including instances in a bathroom and other locations within a residence. The Victim testified at trial through a translator.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the multiple CSP III charges violated double jeopardy protections, prosecutorial misconduct warranted a new trial, two of the convictions were not supported by evidence, presentence confinement credit was incorrectly calculated, and the State did not substantiate the serious violent offender designations for the CSP III convictions.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Conceded that the record did not support the challenged serious violent offender designations and defended the remaining convictions and the trial's conduct.

Legal Issues

• Whether the multiple CSP III charges violate double jeopardy protections.
• Whether prosecutorial misconduct warrants a new trial.
• Whether two of the convictions are supported by sufficient evidence.
• Whether presentence confinement credit was incorrectly calculated.
• Whether the State substantiated the serious violent offender designations for the CSP III convictions.

Disposition

• The court reversed the judgment on the issue of serious violent offender designations.
• Remanded for the district court to vacate one of the CSP III convictions due to double jeopardy protections.
• Affirmed the remaining convictions and aspects of the trial.

Reasons

• The court found that two of the CSP III counts were insufficiently distinct to avoid a violation of double jeopardy protections, requiring one to be vacated. It agreed with the State's concession regarding the lack of support for the serious violent offender designations. The court rejected the Defendant's claims of prosecutorial misconduct, finding no reversible error in the State's closing arguments or references to evidence. It determined that the evidence supported the CSP III (fellatio) and kidnapping convictions, dismissing the Defendant's challenges to these. Lastly, it acknowledged a potential miscalculation of presentence confinement credit but left this to be addressed upon remand, along with the serious violent offender designations and the vacated CSP III conviction (paras 1-27).