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 of two counts of criminal sexual contact with a minor (CSCM). The evidence against the Defendant included allegations made by the victim, who had previously made similar allegations against another individual. The Defendant contended that the victim and her mother had personal reasons to testify falsely against him (para 3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient for a conviction, questioning the credibility of the victim and her mother due to the victim's history of similar allegations and suggesting personal motives for their testimony against him. Additionally, the Defendant claimed that the quality of interpretation provided at trial was inadequate, thereby denying him due process (paras 3-4).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions for criminal sexual contact with a minor.
• Whether the Defendant was denied due process due to the quality of interpretation provided at trial.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions for criminal sexual contact with a minor (para 5).

Reasons

• Per Cynthia A. Fry, J. (James J. Wechsler, J., and J. Miles Hanisee, J., concurring): The Court rejected the Defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, stating that it is not the role of the appellate court to re-weigh evidence or second-guess the credibility determinations made by the factfinder. The Court emphasized that there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict, adhering to precedent that the reviewing court does not substitute its judgment for that of the factfinder (para 3). Regarding the Defendant's due process claim related to the quality of interpretation at trial, the Court concluded that this issue was not properly before them on the merits because the necessary facts were not developed in the record below, and the Defendant failed to preserve the issue for appeal (para 4).