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, William Asarisi, was charged with two counts of criminal sexual penetration (CSP) in the first degree, based on allegations that he sexually abused the Victim, who was under the age of thirteen at the time, between January 1, 1992, and December 31, 1993. The incidents were reported by the Victim in 2011, many years after they occurred. The Defendant was found guilty by a jury on both counts of CSP (paras 1-2).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Luna County, Daniel Viramontes, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel, (3) he was prejudiced by prosecutorial misconduct, (4) the State improperly used a previous conviction to impeach his testimony, and (5) his convictions should be reversed on the basis of cumulative error (para 2).
• Appellee (State): Contended that there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions, the Defendant did not make a prima facie showing of ineffective assistance of counsel, was not prejudiced by prosecutorial misconduct, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting his prior conviction. The State also argued against the application of the doctrine of cumulative error (paras 9, 12, 14, 20, 30, 34).

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions.
• Whether the Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Whether the Defendant was prejudiced by prosecutorial misconduct.
• Whether the State improperly used a previous conviction to impeach the Defendant's testimony.
• Whether the Defendant's convictions should be reversed on the basis of cumulative error (para 2).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions on all counts (para 35).

Reasons

• Sufficiency of the Evidence: The court held that the Victim's testimony constituted sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions, rejecting the argument that Victim’s testimony alone, without independent corroborating evidence, was insufficient (paras 10-12).
  Prosecutorial Misconduct: The court found that the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments did not rise to the level of fundamental error, thus not warranting reversal (paras 14-19).
  Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: The court concluded that the Defendant did not establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel, noting that the record did not support the Defendant's claims (paras 20-28).
  Defendant’s Prior Conviction: The court determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the inquiry into the Defendant's prior conviction for the purpose of attacking his credibility (paras 29-32).
  Cumulative Error: The court found no basis for cumulative error since the Defendant failed to demonstrate individual errors (para 34).
  The court's decision was unanimous, with Judge Jonathan B. Sutin authoring the memorandum opinion, and Judges James J. Wechsler and J. Miles Hanisee concurring (headnotes, para 36).