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 indicted on twenty-seven counts, including criminal sexual penetration of a minor (CSPM) and criminal sexual contact with a minor (CSCM), alleging sexual abuse of a Child from September 2004 to May 2005. After a mistrial and a dismissal of nine counts, the Defendant was retried and convicted on twelve counts of CSPM and six counts of CSCM (para 2).

Procedural History

• August 2005: Defendant indicted on twenty-seven counts of CSPM and CSCM (para 2).
• March 2007: First trial resulted in a mistrial due to a hung jury (para 2).
• [Not applicable or not found]: State filed a nolle prosequi dismissing nine counts of the indictment (para 2).
• [Not applicable or not found]: Second trial on the remaining eighteen counts resulted in convictions for twelve counts of CSPM and six counts of CSCM (para 2).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant: Argued that the district court erred by denying a motion for an independent psychological evaluation of the Child, excluding expert testimony on child victims of sexual abuse and Defendant’s lack of pedophilic tendencies, and denying a motion for a mistrial after a witness mentioned Defendant's incarceration. Also claimed violations of speedy trial and due process rights, insufficiency of the evidence, and ineffective assistance of counsel (paras 3-4, 6, 10, 13, 17, 19, 21, 22, 27, 34, 37).
• State: Contended that the Defendant did not demonstrate a compelling need for a psychological examination of the Child, that excluding expert testimony was within the district court's discretion, and that the Defendant's rights to a speedy trial and due process were not violated. The State also argued that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions (paras 6, 10, 13, 17, 21, 22, 27, 34).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in its evidentiary rulings, including the denial of a motion for an independent psychological evaluation of the Child, exclusion of expert testimony, and denial of a motion for a mistrial.
• Whether the Defendant's constitutional rights to a speedy trial and due process were violated.
• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• Whether the Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel (paras 3-4, 6, 10, 13, 17, 19, 21, 22, 27, 34, 37).

Disposition

• The Court reversed the Defendant's convictions for one count of vaginal penetration, one count of anal penetration, and one count of criminal sexual contact, affirming the remainder of the convictions (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s evidentiary rulings, including the denial of a motion for an independent psychological evaluation of the Child, exclusion of expert testimony, and denial of a motion for a mistrial. The Court also concluded that the Defendant's rights to a speedy trial and due process were not violated. It determined that, except for three counts, the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. The Court did not find a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel, as relevant evidence was not in the record. The convictions were reversed for one count of CSPM for vaginal penetration, one count of CSPM for anal penetration, and one count of CSCM in either April or May due to insufficient evidence supporting two factually distinguishable counts of each type (paras 3-39).