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

• In 2009, the defendant lived with his family, including his three-year-old niece, A.S. A family member found a digital memory card containing two video clips of A.S. being sexually assaulted by an adult male, identified by family members as the defendant. The defendant was charged with fifty-two counts, but only two counts of criminal sexual penetration of a minor under thirteen years of age (CSPM) went to the jury, resulting in a guilty verdict on both counts (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Torrance County, Matthew G. Reynolds, District Judge, June 25, 2013.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the district court made several errors, including improper jury instructions on the elements of criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM) and the definition of "vagina," admission of cumulative identification evidence, shackling during trial, admission of unrelated Halloween photographs and evidence of unrelated charges, and improper statements by the prosecutor (paras 4, 6, 11, 20, 21, 26).
• Appellee: Contended that the district court's omissions and actions did not constitute reversible error, arguing that the jury's verdict was not affected by the alleged errors and that the evidence presented, including the videos and identification testimony, supported the convictions (paras 7, 13, 15, 22, 25, 28).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the elements of CSCM as a lesser included offense of CSPM.
• Whether the district court erred in admitting cumulative identification evidence.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain the CSPM conviction on Count II.
• Whether the district court erred by ordering the defendant to be shackled during the trial.
• Whether the court erred by admitting unrelated Halloween photographs and evidence of unrelated charges.
• Whether the prosecutor's statements were improper and require reversal (para 1).

Disposition

• The court reversed the defendant's conviction for CSPM charged in Count II due to the failure to instruct the jury on the elements of CSCM as a lesser included offense.
• The court affirmed the defendant's conviction for CSPM in Count I and found no error in the defendant's remaining contentions (para 29).

Reasons

• VANZI, Judge, with WECHSLER and FRY, Judges concurring: The court found that the omission of the CSCM elements instruction constituted reversible error because it deprived the jury of the opportunity to consider the lesser included offense, which is a fundamental error requiring reversal. The court did not find reversible error in the district court's instruction regarding "insertion to any extent" instead of "anal intercourse" for Count I, citing precedent that such language accurately presented the applicable law. The court did not find abuse of discretion in the admission of family members' identification testimony, the repeated playing of the video showing the assault, or the admission of Halloween photographs and evidence of unrelated charges. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the CSPM conviction in Count II and did not find fundamental error in the prosecutor's statements during the trial (paras 4-28).