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, Errick Begay, who was charged with sexually assaulting and abusing his then-girlfriend’s minor daughter, referred to as Victim, on multiple occasions between February and December 2020. The specific appeal concerns one of six convictions for criminal sexual penetration of a minor (CSPM) and a conviction for criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM), both involving the same victim on February 2, 2020 (para 2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the two convictions for CSPM and CSCM on February 2, 2020, violate the double jeopardy guarantee against multiple punishments for the same conduct (para 2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the offenses were distinct based on the testimony that established Defendant first committed CSCM, then removed his and Victim’s clothing, and then committed CSPM (para 6).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's convictions for CSPM and CSCM on February 2, 2020, violate the double jeopardy guarantee against multiple punishments for the same conduct.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s convictions for both CSPM and CSCM (para 12).

Reasons

• The Court, led by Chief Judge Jennifer L. Attrep and concurred by Judges Jacqueline R. Medina and Katherine A. Wray, held that the Defendant's conduct was not unitary, thus not violating double jeopardy rights. The Court applied a two-part test to determine if the conduct was unitary and if the Legislature intended to punish the offenses separately. Since the Court concluded the conduct was not unitary, it did not address the second part of the test. The decision was based on the distinctness of the acts, as evidenced by the testimony regarding the sequence of events on February 2, 2020, and the qualitative difference between the acts of touching the victim's unclothed breasts and causing the victim to engage in anal intercourse. The Court found sufficient indicia of distinctness based on the removal of clothing as an intervening event, the violation of the bodily integrity of two of the victim's body parts, and the qualitative difference between the acts (paras 3-11).