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 third-degree criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM). The case arose from allegations that the Defendant touched the victim "on the inside of her private[s] where she pees." The victim's testimony regarding the nature of the contact was ambiguous, leading to a dispute over whether the conduct constituted CSCM or the more severe charge of criminal sexual penetration (CSPM) (para 4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the victim’s testimony unequivocally established that penetration occurred, making CSCM not a lesser included offense of CSPM under the facts of this case. Contended that he was not on notice to defend against the uncharged lesser offense of CSCM and challenged the sufficiency of evidence supporting the CSCM conviction (paras 3, 5, 8).
• Appellee (State): The State's arguments are not explicitly detailed in the decision, but it can be inferred that the State supported the trial court's decision to consider CSCM as a lesser included offense and argued that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction (para 9).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court properly considered CSCM as a lesser included offense of the charged crime of CSPM sua sponte.
• Whether the Defendant was on notice that he would have to defend against the uncharged lesser offense of CSCM.
• Whether the CSCM conviction was supported by sufficient evidence.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of the Defendant for third-degree criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM) (para 10).

Reasons

• J. MILES HANISEE, Judge (JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge, STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge concurring):
  The Court disagreed with the Defendant's assertion that the victim’s testimony unequivocally established that penetration occurred, finding the testimony ambiguous regarding whether penetration as defined occurred. The Court concluded that the district court properly considered CSCM as a lesser included offense sua sponte, based on the ambiguity of the victim's testimony (para 4).
  The Court also found that the Defendant was on notice to defend against the uncharged lesser offense of CSCM, as it is a lesser included offense of the crime named in the charging document. The Court referenced established precedent that a defendant must defend not only against the greater offense as charged but also against any lesser included offense (para 5).
  Regarding the sufficiency of evidence, the Court stated it does not evaluate the credibility of witnesses or draw inferences contrary to the district court’s judgment. It rejected the Defendant's argument that inconsistencies in witness testimony and evidence would prevent a conviction for a lesser offense, affirming the district court's judgment on the sufficiency of evidence supporting the CSCM conviction (para 8).
  Lastly, the Court declined to reassign the case to the general calendar based on the Defendant's arguments regarding the clarity of the record on appeal, finding the evidence in question inconsequential to their analysis (para 9).