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 for criminal sexual penetration in the first degree of a child under thirteen. The conviction was based on evidence including the Defendant's own statements, the testimony of the Victim and her mother, and expert testimony diagnosing the Victim with chlamydia, which supported the conclusion of sexual penetration. The Defendant appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of hearsay testimony, and the amendment of the date of the charged offense after the State's case had closed.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for first-degree criminal sexual penetration and sought reversal and remand for judgment on a lesser-included offense. Additionally, contended that the district court erred by admitting hearsay testimony under the medical diagnosis exception and by allowing the State to amend the date of the charged offense after the close of the State's case.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Maintained that the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction and that the district court did not err in its rulings on the admission of hearsay testimony or the amendment of the charge date.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for first-degree criminal sexual penetration.
• Whether the district court erred by admitting hearsay testimony under the medical diagnosis exception.
• Whether the district court erred by allowing the State to amend the date of the charged offense after the close of the State's case.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of the Defendant for criminal sexual penetration in the first degree.

Reasons

• Per Ives, J., with Attrep, J., and Zamora, J., concurring:
  The Court found that substantial evidence supported the Defendant's conviction, including the Defendant's admissions, Victim's testimony, and expert testimony diagnosing the Victim with chlamydia, which indicated sexual penetration (paras 2-8).
  The Court held that it was not plain error to admit the Victim's statements to the expert witness under the medical diagnosis exception to the hearsay rule, as the statements did not specify the Defendant as the perpetrator and thus did not prejudice the Defendant's case (paras 9-11).
  The Court concluded that the amendment of the date of the charged offense did not prejudice the Defendant's substantial rights, as the Defendant was on notice of the relevant timeframe and had the opportunity to prepare his defense accordingly. The amendment did not affect the viability of the Defendant's defense strategies (paras 12-18).