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 one count of criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM). The incident involved the Defendant, a family acquaintance, touching the victim, A.S., beneath her skirt in her vaginal area and attempting to remove her panties on two separate occasions (para 5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for CSCM, specifically challenging the adequacy of evidence regarding the use of physical force (para 4). Additionally, claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, contending that trial counsel failed to request a definition of force that required a "sufficient quantum of force" (para 7).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Maintained that the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction and that the legal standards regarding the use of physical force and the assistance of counsel were correctly applied (paras 2-7).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for one count of CSCM.
• Whether the Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel due to counsel's failure to request a specific definition of force.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction for one count of CSCM (para 8).

Reasons

• Per ATTREP, J. (BOGARDUS and DUFFY, JJ., concurring): The Court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict and finding that the victim's description of the touching was sufficient to negate consent, thereby satisfying the element of force (paras 2-5). The Court rejected the Defendant's advocacy for a definition of physical force equivalent to violent force causing physical pain or injury, citing precedent that no specific quantum of force is necessary to fulfill the element of "force or coercion" (para 5). Regarding the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the Court applied the two-prong test from Strickland v. Washington, concluding that the Defendant's counsel's performance was not deficient as the law does not require a specific quantum of force to be proven, and thus, the Defendant was not entitled to an instruction imposing a higher burden of proof than the statute requires (paras 6-7).