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 contact of a minor (CSCM) and criminal sexual penetration of a minor (CSPM), based on incidents involving touching and penetrating the victim, J.S., with his fingers. The events occurred within a span of about five minutes, in a single location, while both were on a couch in the living room.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the convictions for both CSCM and CSPM violate double jeopardy, the district court erred in admitting a videotaped interrogation, and there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the conduct at issue is not unitary, thus not violating double jeopardy, and argued for the admissibility and relevance of the videotaped interrogation, as well as the sufficiency of evidence supporting the convictions.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's convictions for both CSCM and CSPM violate the double jeopardy guarantee against multiple punishments for the same conduct.
• Whether the district court erred in admitting a videotaped interrogation.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions.

Disposition

• The court agreed with the Defendant's double jeopardy argument and remanded to the district court to vacate the Defendant's conviction for CSCM. The court otherwise affirmed the convictions.

Reasons

• The court, comprising Judge Jennifer L. Attrep, with Judges Megan P. Duffy and Briana H. Zamora concurring, found that the Defendant's conduct was unitary, lacking sufficient indicia of distinctness in time, space, manner, and objective, thus violating the double jeopardy clause when convicted of both CSCM and CSPM for the same conduct (paras 2-8). The court applied the two-part test from Swafford v. State, determining that the Legislature did not intend to punish the offenses separately (paras 9-11). Regarding the admission of the videotaped interrogation, the court ruled that it did not abuse its discretion as the interrogation was relevant and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect (para 12). Lastly, the court dismissed the Defendant's argument regarding the insufficiency of evidence, noting that J.S.'s testimony was corroborated by the Defendant's interrogation and that the victim's testimony alone is sufficient in criminal sexual penetration cases (para 13).